All post are moderated. My hours are 9-5.
Please choose "Name/URL" in the "Comment as:" box and fill in a unique name, like "John Doe" or "Anonymous #4972." You can leave the URL blank.

Questions? My email address is detect (at) newsguy (dot) com

Monday, October 20, 2014

Subject: The Scientific Method

The Scientific Method

Anthrax Truthers and conspiracy theorists appear to be incapable of understanding the scientific method. It seems they generally start with a conclusion, and then they just look for facts which support that conclusion, while ignoring anything and everything that does not support their conclusion. Thus, the idea of finding evidence that says you are on the wrong track is virtually incomprehensible to them. To them, anyone who admits to having been on a wrong track is considered to be incompetent and forever distrusted.

However, understanding that your first impressions are not always right is key to the Scientific Method that is used by most investigators in most fields, including FBI agents and scientists.

For example, it was initially assumed by many people that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks of 2001, because (1) the anthrax letter attacks came so soon after the horrific attacks of 9/11, (2) the letters contained threats and language that appeared to be from Islamic extremists, and (3) it had been feared for years - since the first attack upon the World Trade Center in 1993 - that Islamic terrorists might someday strike America with "the poor man's atomic bomb," i.e., a biological or chemical weapon.

So, it can be argued that the Amerithrax investigation began with an hypothesis that al Qaeda was behind the attacks.

Then the FBI began to investigate (i.e., do research) to determine whether the hypothesis was true or not.

In other words, the first question asked was: Did al Qaeda operatives really send the anthrax letters?

The investigation couldn't find any additional evidence to support the hypothesis. Instead, it found evidence which seemed to show that the al Qaeda hypothesis was invalid. One of the first facts uncovered was that the strain of anthrax used in the attacks was an American strain used primarily in American labs for vaccine research. Plus, no trace of anthrax could be found anywhere the 9/11 hijackers had been, so it didn't appear that 9/11 and the anthrax attacks were connected. The initial assumption (or hypothesis) appeared to be false.

So, a new question was asked: Who sent the anthrax letters?

The subsequent investigation by the FBI uncovered an abundance of facts and evidence showing that Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins was the anthrax killer.

But, there were still some unanswered questions. Examples:

Exactly how did Dr. Ivins make the anthrax spores used in the letters?Where did the silicon in the spores come from?How did Dr. Ivins disguise his handwriting?

There are many ways that Dr. Ivins could have made the attack spores, and the results would be the same for all the methods. Dr. Ivins is dead and cannot explain what he did. Thus, there's no way to be absolutely certain which method he used. There are also different ways that the silicon could have gotten into the spores, and we are unlikely to ever know exactly which method Dr. Ivins used. (Six percent of the spores Dr. Ivins created for flask RMR-1030 contained a "silicon signature" that exactly matched the attack spores, but Dr. Ivins himself may not have known how it happened.) At best, the investigators can only determine the "most likely" way that he did it.

The same holds true for the method Ivins used to disguise his handwriting. The writing on the anthrax documents does NOT match Dr. Ivins' normal handwriting. But he was known to disguise his handwriting when sending letters and presents to his female co-workers.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice are not going to attempt to determine which methods Dr. Ivins most likely used to accomplish those tasks, since it is not necessary in order to prove their case. They just need to prove that Dr. Ivins has the means. Plus, arguing about what is "most likely" only generates counter arguments that the crime might have been done in some totally unlikely way.

Facts and evidence indicate that Dr. Ivins most likely disguised his handwriting in a relatively unique way: He manipulated a child into doing the writing for him. Click HERE for a video explaining 12 facts which support this hypothesis. Click HERE to read a detailed written explanation of the hypothesis.

The hypothesis that a child wrote the anthrax documents has remained unchallenged for over ten years. Discovering that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer helped confirm the hypothesis, since he seems to have had access to first graders who could have done the writing. Plus, Dr. Ivins' psychological makeup indicates he could very likely have done things that way.

Anthrax Truthers, of course, do not believe this handwriting hypothesis, but they cannot challenge it by providing facts and evidence which show it is incorrect. Mostly all they seem to be able to do is argue that a typical killer would not have done things that way. That is a different question and means nothing to the Amerithrax case. Dr. Ivins was not a typical killer, and the methods he "most likely" used seem to fit his personality and situation perfectly.

Sometimes Anthrax Truthers also try to argue about whether the child was a boy or girl, and whether it's easier to manipulate a typical boy or typical girl. Those are also different questions, so the hypothesis does not answer or address those questions. There don't seem to be sufficient writing samples to make such an evaluation, and there's no reason to believe the child was "typical."

Of course, one could ask the question: Who was the child who wrote the anthrax letters?

But, any answer from me would be only an hypothesis. And such an hypothesis would have to name some child who could be forever harmed by being identified as "the child who wrote the anthrax letters." So, I'm not willing to even discuss such an hypothesis.

In summary:

The facts and evidence form an hypothesis that Dr. Ivins most likely used anthrax spores in the attack letters that were created as part of his job for test purposes, instead of destroying the spores after the tests were done.

The facts and evidence form an hypothesis that anthrax spores can most likely be created with silicon in their spore coats if they are grown at room temperatures instead of at incubator temperatures.

The facts and evidence form an hypothesis that says Dr. Ivins most likely used a first grader to write the anthrax documents.

Everyone reading this blog is urged to challenge these hypotheses with contrary facts and evidence showing that some other explanation was more likely, if they can do so.

The objective of using the Scientific Method is to find out what most likely happened, and if there are better facts and better evidence which shows different explanations are most likely, I would be most interested in being advised of them.

119 comments:

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just sent me a very long, repetitive email which begins with this sentence: "The written opinion by the FBI’s expert on Dr. Ivins’ handwriting — the only one produced under FOIA — would have been admissible in Dr. Ivins’ defense."

There's no point is showing the rest of the email, since the premise is invalid, and the rest of the email just argues that invalid premise.

During the first part of the trial, the prosecution would have presented witnesses stating that the handwriting on the anthrax documents looked to them to be the DISGUISED writing that Dr. Ivins used when he sent letters and packages to women (former co-workers) with whom he was obsessed.

No judge is going to allow the defense to present some document or even testimony from some expert stating that the handwriting on the anthrax documents does not match Dr. Ivins' NORMAL handwriting, since it was already established by the prosecution that the handwriting looked like Dr. Ivins' DISGUISED handwriting.

Such a document or testimony would be meaningless, repetitive and a waste of the court's time.

To be allowed, the document (or testimony) would have to help establish that Dr. Ivins could not have disguised his handwriting in such a way. The document says NOTHING about "disguised handwriting."

"DXer" just endlessly argues meaningless and irrelevant issues in order to hide the fact that he does not understand evidence and cannot make a case for his own theory.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just sent me two more emails containing meaningless blather about expert witnesses in the field of handwriting analysis.

The prosecution in the Ivins case would have presented LAY witnesses testifying that the handwriting on the anthrax documents resembled the handwriting that Ivins used when he sent them letters and packages.

There would be no basis for those LAY WITNESSES to be challenged by any "expert witnesses."

LAY WITNESSES testify to what they saw. They saw handwriting that looked like Ivins' DISGUISED handwriting. Period. End of story.

A desperate defense attorney might try asking the witnesses if it could have been someone else's handwriting instead of Dr. Ivins' DISGUISED handwriting. But, that would almost certainly NOT be allowed by the judge, since it calls for an "EXPERT opinion," and lay witnesses are not "experts."

"DXer" is arguing about "expert witnesses" when the evidence would have been presented by LAY witnesses simply testifying to what they saw and thought.

"DXer" just sent me another email. The subject was you really should read the scientific literature about examination of disguised handwriting Ed

In other words, he cannot make any kind of argument. He just wants ME to do some meaningless research. And, if I don't, then he'll argue that he's read more meaningless literature than I have.

The text of DXer's email begins with this:

The characteristics of disguised handwriting, of course, is also suitably the subject of expert testimony and cross-examination.FN/

That's true, of course. But, so what? DXer cannot explain anything. It's just a meaningless statement. There's no reason to believe that the DOJ was going to have "handwriting experts" testify about the handwriting on the anthrax documents.

DXer then argues: If the FBI wants to argue that its expert in the above opinion was wrong, it is free to do so. But what was not acceptable was for it to fail to disclose the opinion at the press conference in August 2008 and in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary -- and to misreprsent the written opinion that had been rendered.

The expert wasn't wrong. The handwriting was NOT Ivins' normal handwriting. It's DXer's OPINION that the expert opinion document should have been disclosed earlier. In his OPINION the expert opinion document has some bearing on the evidence against Ivins. It doesn't.

If the defense would want to question the witness, that would be up to them. But, as I stated in an earlier post, the document SAYS NOTHING RELEVANT. It says NOTHING about Ivins' disguised handwriting.

DXer, as usual, then provides meaningless documents which prove nothing relevant, explain nothing relevant, and have no value to the argument:

"Any claims and observations made in the literature have been reviewed and empirically tested. A body of controlled data was collected from sixty volunteers who produced samples of disguised handwriting and traced signatures. A rigorous examination of these samples has been described and quantitative evidence found to support the conclusion that the act of disguising or tracing handwriting will have a negative influence upon the appearance and structure of that writing. Results have shown that disguised and traced writings are intimately related in that they share common characteristics that are indicative of the artificial manner by which they have been produced. Other features are also identified that can be directly associated with specific types of deviant writing to allow for distinctions to be made between them."

Note the silliness of his argument. He quotes from a college thesis from a student in England that contains NOTHING of relevance to British law, much less to American law.

If DXer wishes to argue something about the handwriting on the anthrax letters, all he has to do is MAKE A CLAIM and support the claim with RELEVANT EVIDENCE. His only claim is that the DOJ didn't do things the way he feels they should have been done. His "evidence" is meaningless blather.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted to post this message this morning:

"Like the issues of subtilis, the absence of meglumine and diatriazoate, the presence of silicon, the unavailability of the lyophilizer, the continuing storage of Ames sample in Building 1412, isotope ratios relating to the water used to grow the anthrax, anthrax smelling dogs etc., when I raise the issue of the FBI's formal handwriting opinion, you take your personal agenda like a teddy bear and run and hide under a blanket of uninformed schtick. This past week YOU are the one who did not address the issues raised above and addressed with citations to the scientific literature, data and findings -- such as the isotope ratios in Kandahar."

All those issues have been repeatedly addressed. But "DXer" refuses to accept any explanation for any of them other than that the government is incompetent or deliberately hiding something.

The issue of Bacillus subtilis was not testableThe chemicals in RMR-1029 only prove new spores were grown.The silicon issue was resolved. (It grows naturally in spores.)The question of access to Ames was resolved by the process of elimination.The water tests were not reliable.The use of dogs was a side issue.The lyophilizer issue was a simple mistake that was quickly corrected.The handwriting question is resolved (it was disguised somehow).etc., etc., etc.

"DXer" just cannot accept any evidence unless it agrees with his beliefs.

All he does is demonstrate over and over that he will not accept any investigative method that does not start with his belief and then force everything to fit his belief.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") also sent me a couple emails this morning. The first said:

"Your suggestion this week that the FBI's only expert handwriting comparison of Dr. Ivins' handwiritng with the Fall 2001 anthrax letters would not have been admissible was remarkably uninformed."

Total baloney, of course. DXer just continues to twist things to fit his beliefs.

I said that the prosecution would present, as part of its case against Dr. Ivins, lay witness testimony that the handwriting appeared to be Ivins' disguised handwriting.

The defense might try to introduce the Muehlberger report as evidence of something, but it's very doubtful that it would be allowed because (1) it is inconclusive, (2) it says nothing about "disguised handwriting", and (3) it does not help resolve the issue being tried: Ivins' guilt or innocence.

DXer may have an OPINION that Muehlberger's report is meaningful for the defense, but he evidently cannot explain HOW is challenges the prosecution's argument that Ivins somehow disguised his handwriting when creating the anthrax documents.

The second email was just some meaningless blather under the subject: "Challenges in Intelligence Analysis": Questions For Further Thought About Anthrax Attacks (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

He provides no explanation for why he sent that meaningless blather, of course. He evidently just assumes everyone either sees what he sees, or they are blind.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice are not going to attempt to determine which methods Dr. Ivins most likely used to accomplish those tasks, since it is not necessary in order to prove their case. They just need to prove that Dr. Ivins has the means.------------------------------------------------------------------No. "Means"* speaks only to potential, whether we are talking about a stick-up, a burglary, a murder. To prove a person guilty of a crime(ANY CRIME, regardless of the suspect/defendant), there has to be evidence (and substantial evidence) that the person USED that means. It's conspicuously absent in Amerithrax.

On the other hand the ABSENCE of 'means' essentially would exonerate a suspect/defendant, precisely because without those means (or an accomplice with those means), the commission of a crime would be impossible FOR THAT SUSPECT): police don't usually look for cat burglars among the crippled.

*And speaking of 'means' is there ANY record whatsoever in Ivins' work life from 1981 to 2001 of him drying/purifying anthrax powder WITHOUT using a lyophilizer?I merely ask the question because I've never read any info that he ever did.

R. Rowley wrote: "*And speaking of 'means' is there ANY record whatsoever in Ivins' work life from 1981 to 2001 of him drying/purifying anthrax powder WITHOUT using a lyophilizer?"

It's illegal to make viable dry anthrax powders. So, there would not likely be any record that Ivins did such a thing -- even using a lyophilizer.

However, every microbiologist knows the danger of allowing anthrax spores to air dry. Microbiologists need to take all sorts of precautions to prevent it from happening. Therefore, every microbiologist knows how to air dry anthrax spores: don't prevent it from happening.

There are reports of Ivins leaving bags full of inoculated plates set for weeks in the corner of his lab. Those bags would contain dry anthrax spores. That may be the only "record" there is of him doing it.

Ivins knew how to purify spores. It was his job to do so. Drying spores intentionally is illegal. What Ivins did was an illegal act.

R. Rowley wrote: "To prove a person guilty of a crime (ANY CRIME, regardless of the suspect/defendant), there has to be evidence (and substantial evidence) that the person USED that means. It's conspicuously absent in Amerithrax."

Mr. Rowley makes NO SENSE.

Someone USED some technique to make anthrax powders to kill 5 and injure 17. The question is: Who did it? There is a mountain of evidence that says Dr. Ivins did it. Therefore, it was Dr. Ivins who used the means available to him to make the powders.

Mr. Rowley needs to explain what he would consider to be evidence. Once again, Mr. Rowley seems to require home movies of Ivins making the powders as the only evidence he'll accept.

Or Mr. Rowley is once again arguing that having the means does not BY ITSELF prove Ivins was guilty. And the only evidence Mr. Rowley will accept is evidence that BY ITSELF proves Ivins' guilt.

The totality of the evidence against Dr. Ivins is overwhelming. The idea that it must be known exactly which method Ivins used to make the spores is as absurd as demanding that it be known exactly which route Ivins took to drive to Princeton to mail the letters. That degree of exactitude is NOT required. It's only required to show that he had the means.

The fact that Ivins had the "means" to make the powders is only one item of evidence in a MOUNTAIN of evidence showing Ivins was the anthrax killer. The legal system does not require that a single item of evidence must prove guilt by itself, even if Mr. Rowley keeps demanding that it work that way.

"DXer," once again using the phoney name "Stephen Howell," attempted another sleazy, vile personal attack. I deleted it.

"DXer" using his pseudonyms "Anonymous" and "Steve H" and "Stephen Howell" constantly brings up my hypothesis that a child wrote the anthrax letters, and then he claims I'm the one who is constantly bringing it up. And he falsely attacks me for constantly bringing it up.

Regardless of which pseudonym he's using, "DXer" seems incapable of discussing any subject intelligently. When he is shown to be wrong, or when his arguments are shown to be baseless or silly, he resorts to disgusting personal attacks.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous" a.k.a. "Steve H" attempted another post this morning. Since it's a good example of his illogical and distorted thinking, here is his attempted post in its entirety.

-----------------FACTBruce Ivins' fermenter was inoperable in Fall 2001 -- its motor was missing. It once had been used to grow nonpathogenic Sterne for vaccine research purposes.

FACTYazid Sufaat's fermenter was operating. He was working with virulent anthrax to grow anthrax for use as a weapon against US targets.----------------------

Anyone capable of understanding basic logic would read this and say:

If Bruce Ivins' fermenter was inoperable, doesn't that mean he didn't use a fermenter to grow the spores? Wouldn't it have been STUPID for him to use a fermenter to grow the spores, anyway, since it would have been next to impossible to have used it in secret?

The facts say the spores were NOT grown in a fermenter.

The facts say Dr. Ivins used spores taken from PLATES that he had created to anthrax animal test dosages." He grew spores on 546 plates shortly before the attacks, more than enough to produce all the spores in all the letters. Normally, those test plates are destroyed after the tests, but Ivins didn't destroy them. He used their contents for the attacks.

So, who cares if the USAMRIID fermenter wasn't working?

Even if true (which is highly doubtful), "DXer's" so-called "FACTS" about Yazid Sufaat are MEANINGLESS, since Yazid Sufaat had no known access to the spores in flask RMR-1029, and there is no evidence that his anthrax spores (if he ever made any) were the spores in the anthrax letters. It's pure speculation.

While I was typing that first part of this response, "Anonymous" attempted a second post. Here it is in it's entirety:

-----------------FACT - Yazid Sufaat had a dryer in his lab for the purpose of drying anthrax for use as a weapon against US targets.

FACT - Bruce Ivins did not.

Ed never addresses the FACTS and merely deletes posts that point the facts out.--------------------------

Total nonsense, of course. I address the facts of how Ivins made the attack powders on a page on my web site titled "How Bruce Ivins made the anthrax powders." Just click HERE.

The spores were almost certainly AIR DRIED. DXer (a.k.a. "Anonymous") refuses to address that subject. Instead, he insists on arguing about the lyophilizer, which EVERYONE KNOWS Ivins did not use.

DXer argues that Ivins didn't use things everyone knows Ivins didn't use, DXer ignores the techniques Ivins most likely used, and then DXer inexplicably claims I do not address the facts.

That clearly shows how he cannot argue the facts. He ignores the facts, and instead argues things that are NOT facts.

No one cares if "Yazid Sufaat had a dryer in his lab" if there's NO EVIDENCE indicating it had anything to do with the anthrax attacks of 2001. DXer has no such evidence. All he has is conjecture, ignorant opinions and unsubstantiated beliefs.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog. Here is his attempted post in its entirety:

----------------Ed claims that everyone knows that Bruce Ivins did not grow the anthrax with a fermenter. To the contrary, AUSA Rachel Lieber, the prosecutor leading the charge, provably did NOT know that. She was filmed by public television expressly pointing to the fermenter she thought was in Bruce Ivins' hot suite as a means by which he could have grown the anthrax. Ed, perhaps, you didn't see AUSA Lieber's interview. The transcript is online and I've linked it on Lew's blog.

But it is duly noted that you concede Dr. Ivins did not use a fermenter to grow the anthrax.

Ed, why did you ignore the fact that the prosecutor pressing the Ivins Theory expressly pointed to the fermenters even as recent as the wonderful Propublica, McClatchy and Frontline interview?

And Ed, have you seen what Dr. Majidi says on the fermenter issue? Rather than assert "everyone knows Ivins did not use" a fermenter, perhaps you could quote Majidi on the issue to see if he knows that. You fail to source your claims by linked evidence which is why you are so often mistaken.---------------------

DXer does not provide links, and wants me to search for them. And, instead of providing a quote, he wants me to try to figure out what quote he's talking about.

I went to Lew's blog and did a search for "Lieber." In a post HERE, DXer wrote:

"AUSA Lieber apparently did not realize or disagrees with the Dr. Andrews report that the only fermenter available to Ivins was disabled with its motor removed."

And DXer provides a links to two PBS shows. In the second link HERE, Rachel Lieber is quoted as saying,

Frankly, within B-3, the suite where RMR-1029 was housed, there was a speed vacuum there within B-3, in close proximity to the 1029 flask. There were fermenters in there. … A fermenter is a way to grow a large quantity of spores in a very short period of time. We have e-mails from Dr. Ivins that show that he wanted to use fermenters to grow spores when he was actually creating 1029 back in 1997. There are shake flasks, another way to grow a large quantity of spores in a shorter period of time.

So these are all different ways within B-3, within the suite that was where Dr. Ivins worked, where 1029 was housed, where he was capable of growing a large quantity of spores."

What AUSA Lieber is explaining is that IVINS HAD THE MEANS TO CREATE THE ATTACK SPORES. She is NOT - repeat NOT - saying that Ivins used a fermenter to create the spores OR that he could NOT have used the fermenter.

If you argue that Ivins could not have used the fermenter, you would have to argue that Ivins could not possibly have rigged the fermenter to work, even without a motor. Lieber is not going to argue that. It may be POSSIBLE to have used the fermenter even though many people assumed or believed it could not have been used.

In my opinion, AUSA Lieber KNOWS that Ivins MOST LIKELY did NOT use the fermenter. But, the DOJ's argument is that Ivins had the MEANS. She is not and would not argue WHICH MEANS Ivins "most likely used" or "could not have used."

Dr. Majidi does the same thing.

Whether or not they "know" Ivins didn't use the fermenter or the lyophilizer is a matter of opinion. MY opinion is that they know that. They just cannot argue that in court. So, they cannot say that to the media.

Here's more of what Rachel Lieber said that I couldn't fit into the 4,096 byte limit on the above post:

In addition, there were just vial after vial after vial of Ames strain anthrax that the FBI discovered in Dr. Ivins’ walk-in refrigerator that were unaccounted for. So his ability to grow and house spores unbeknownst to other people clearly was there. …

I don’t blame his colleagues for suggesting, “Oh, it couldn’t have happened here.” Nobody wants to think it could have happened here on my watch; I was keeping an eye on him. I don’t blame them for feeling that way. But in fact, the evidence directly rebuts that, because FBI scientists, Dugway scientists did it. So the folks who have never tried, folks who don’t work with dried Bacillus, they can have their opinions. But in fact, our scientists did it.

Note, she's saying that FBI scentists and Dugway scientists were able to create spores like those in the attack letters using the same equipment Ivins had available. So, they can PROVE THAT IVINS HAD THE MEANS.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post where he argues the same thing he argued in his previous post: that Rachel Lieber does not "know" that Ivins didn't use a fermenter to grow the attack spores.

I think she does know that. Anyone who understands the evidence in the case would likely know that Dr. Ivins almost certainly used spores grown on plates.

However, it's just another pointless opinion-versus-opinion argument, and therefore not worth any further comment.

Late yesterday, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to this blog. DXer wrote:

Yet US Attorney Taylor listed the lyophilizer as among the top reasons supporting his guilt. On August 8, 2008, US Attorney Taylor said:

“The affidavits allege that, not only did Dr. Ivins create and maintain the spore batch used in the mailings, but he also had access to and experience using a lyophilizer. A lyophilizer is a sophisticated machine that is used to dry pathogens, and can be used to dry anthrax. We know others in Dr. Ivins’ lab consulted him when they needed to use this machine.”

This is another opinion versus opinion argument. In my opinion, what Mr. Taylor was saying was that Ivins falsely claimed that he was no expert on the use of the lyophilizer, yet he was the "expert" people went to when they needed to use the lyophilizer. So, Ivins was lying and trying to lead the investigation away from himself.

In court, the prosecution would have presented testimony that Ivins lied about his knowledge of the lyophilizer.

It would have been evidence of Ivins trying to mislead the investigation, NOT evidence that Ivins used the lyophilizer to make the attack spores.

Dxer then wrote:

Ed does not let the posts go through because through the quotations, links and citations, I demonstrate that Ed regularly just makes unsupported assertions contradicted by the record. He then just ignores the cited authority.

Actually, just the opposite is true. DXer has no "authority" for his claims. All he has are ignorant opinions from people who do not think Ivins did it. Those ignorant opinions are disputed by the evidence and by the experts I quote and cite.

DXer also wrote:

Given the lyophilizer was B5 and not the B3 hot suite, all of the electronic records showing Dr. Ivins’ time in B3 working with the animals serves as an alibi rather than evidence of guilt

Total nonsense, of course. The fact that the lyophilizer was in B5 has nothing to do with what Ivins was doing in B3. Plus, Ivins "working with animals" in no way serves as an alibi. DXer just persists in the absurd argument that, if Dr. Ivins had any legal work to do in a given day, then he could not possibly have been doing any illegal work. That is a preposterous argument.

IVINS HAD NO ALIBI FOR THE TIMES OF THE MAILINGS. PERIOD.

The fact that Ivins MAY have spent some time during the day working with animals does NOT give him a 24-hour alibi. Nor does the fact that he went to a meeting from 5:30 to 7 p.m. give him an alibi for what he did for the rest of the night.

DXer is making absurd claims that just do not stand up to logic and reason.

This morning, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") continued his unending efforts to post nonsense to this blog. Here is his latest attempt in its entirety:

------------------------Ed apparently has not read the documents establishing that Dr. Ivins work with the 52 rabbits was on nights and weekends. Ed does not request pertinent documents. Then when obtained by others, he does not read them. I have linked a summary with the numerous links to the uploaded documents on Lew's blog. Ed needs to turn to schtick and putting words into someone's mouth because he is too uninformed to address the merits -- all supported by documents that Ed has neither linked nor read.----------------------

What DXer is really saying is that I do not spin, distort and misunderstand things the way he does.

There is nothing in the documents about rabbits that provides Ivins with an alibi. DXer cannot explain how it provides an alibi for Ivins. He just CLAIMS the documents do it. His claim appears to be that if Ivins did anything legal during a day, then he could not possibly have done anything illegal during that same day - or the next.

He says I haven't read documents that I've not only read but quoted and linked to on my site. I have read them. They just do not say what DXer claims they say.

He cannot explain anything - except by citing meaningless documents and arguing that the meaningless document is somehow an explanation.

DXer's type of explanation was well illustrated when he argued that a NEWS REPORT that said Mohammed Khan entered the US "after Sept. 1, 2001" and that somehow meant that Adnan el Shukrijumah was in New Jersey on September 17 and October 8, 2001. It's an absurd distortion of the facts.

It's the same with the 52 rabbit "theory." DXer claims that because Ivins was working with rabbits at some time during August or September or October of 2001, that means Dr. Ivins had an alibi for the time of the anthrax mailings.

DXER'S CLAIMS ARE TOTAL NONSENSE.

DXer argues that anyone who does not see what he sees has not read the pertinent documents. In reality, what he sees is just his unique spin on things.

He cannot explain anything except by citing meaningless documents and stating that the explanation is somewhere in those meaningless documents. And by claiming that if others cannot find the "evidence" there, that somehow means they haven't read the documents.

It's a "game" he needs to play because he HAS NO EVIDENCE and therefore CANNOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING.

You two have been at it for years much to the amusement of interested onlookers. Despite all the back and forth and convoluted rhetoric, neither of you have the monopoly on the truth of the matter. Neither of your pet villains are responsible for the anthrax mailings. If the truth were to stare you in the face you would look past it and continue your foolish dance.

"Anonymous" wrote: "Neither of your pet villains are responsible for the anthrax mailings."

I let this post from "Anonymous" go through because it appears to be from a different "Anonymous." It appears this "Anonymous" has his (or her) own pet theory about who was behind the anthrax attacks of 2001, and it isn't al Qaeda OR Bruce Ivins.

I can't speak for "DXer" (the other "Anonymous"), but I'm always interested in the "truth."

If a newcomer to this blog wants to advocate "the truth," it's generally not a good idea to start by posting nonsense and insults.

Although I am a newcomer to your blog, I have been involved in the case for as long as you and DXer have. As for posting nonsense and insults, you have posted some whopper nonsense -- i.e. a child wrote the anthrax letters -- over the years and you're too old to be thin-skinned about what you call insults. You admit on your website that your banter with DXer brings you web traffic but you won't let him post on your blog. You must know that he's harmless and his tunnel vision is no worse than yours. That's certainly one thing the two of you have in common. The lone Wolf anthrax mailer theory is valid and it wasn't Bruce Ivins or Mohamed Atta. The case did not close with the death of Ivins. In effect, it's a cold case awaiting revelation.

Early this morning, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in it's entirety:

--------------Ed, note that the JHU/APL Memorandum of Agreement with DSD-USAMRIID expressly provides also for the provision of active biological materials to JHU/APL and its subcontractors as required - not just irradiated powder from Flask 1097 in the 100 vials, with 98 missing. You never bothered to obtain and read the documents that USAMRIID provided to the FBI in response to the February 2002 subpoena -- even though it would not have cost you anything."---------------------------------

I see from DXer's posts to Lew's blog that he meant flask 1029, not "flask 1097." And he seems to indicate there are other mistakes in that piece of gibberish, too.

So, I'm just posting it as an example of the kind of gibberish "DXer" wants to endlessly dump into this blog.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog. Here is his attempted post in its entirety:---------------Mara Linscott said that the night and weekend checks was a one-person job and would take a couple of hours. That's how long Dr. Ivins took. If you took more care to get your facts right -- and less time putting false words into someone's mouth -- you wouldn't make so many egregious mistakes.'------------------

Yes, we've argued this MANY times before.

Mara Linscott said that ON WEEKENDS it would take two hours to check the animals. Since it does NOT take two hours to check animals during a normal work day, it only takes a few minutes, what she obviously meant was that it would take two hours out of her weekend to drive to USAMRIID, shower, change clothes, check the animals, shower, change clothes again, and return home.

Here's a quote from "Amerithrax Part 33":

Page 80: After reviewing the XXXX hot suite access charts, XXXXX was unable to explain the extended late night and weekend hours for XXXXXXX IVINS. XXXXX explained that when [he] went into the hot suites after hours or on weekends XXXXXXXXXX it took [him] longer to drive to and from work, get dressed to enter the hot suites and shower up after entering the hot suites, then to perform the actual task within the hot suites.

If DXer took more care to get his facts right -- and less time putting false words into someone's mouth -- he wouldn't make so many egregious mistakes.

Checking on the Linscott quote, I find it is from FBI file #847425, page 23. (That translates to Part 4 of 59 in the FBI's new numbering system. Click HERE to view the full document, and go to page 23.

Replacing the redacted name with Linscott's name it says:

"Linscott perceived the normal laboratory hours to start between the morning hours of 7:00AM to 9:00AM and last through 5:00PM, although there would be occasions when someone would come in later. If someone came in on the weekend it was to look at the animals/count the dead animals. This could take approximately two hours and was usually a one-person job."

So, it would take a couple hours out of a weekend. It would NOT take a couple hours to check on animals.

On page 32 of the Amerithrax Summary Report it says,

"However, the first three of those days, he was in the hot suites for well over an hour, far longer than necessary to check to see if any mice were dead."

So, even an hour is "far longer" than needed to check on animals.

I found that this topic was fully discussed in this blog on April 29, 2012. Click HERE to view the comment.

It was also discussed at length in my January 3, 2012 (A) comment on my web site.

DXer can bring up his absurd claim that it takes 2 hours to check on animals as many times as he wants, it is still nonsense.

Alas, I haven't been much reading this or other more recent threads but, on a jaunt through this thread, my attention was drawn to this from the above:---------------------------Replacing the redacted name with Linscott's name it says:

"Linscott perceived the normal laboratory hours to start between the morning hours of 7:00AM to 9:00AM and last through 5:00PM, although there would be occasions when someone would come in later. If someone came in on the weekend it was to look at the animals/count the dead animals. This could take approximately two hours and was usually a one-person job."

So, it would take a couple hours out of a weekend. It would NOT take a couple hours to check on animals.==============================No, that's a misread of the pivotal part of the passage: "If someone came in on the weekend it was to look at the animals/count the dead animals. This could take approximately two hours..."====Mister Lake interprets "this" to mean 'the weekend', whereas most English-speakers, confronted with such a passage, would understand "this" to mean the TASK of checking the animals/counting the dead ones. Which would be of the same duration, whether performed on a weekend or during off-hours at night.(And, of course, if my reading is correct, then Ivins staying over an hour wasn't the slightest bit unusual for that purpose See: rest of Mister Lake's post).

Your OPINION shows you are misreading things and arguing about words again, as usual.

The TASK of "checking the animals/counting the dead ones" requires a different amount of time on weekends than during the week because on weekends you aren't at work and first have to drive to work. The drive time is part of the "task." In my post I provided a quote from someone explaining that on weekends "tasks" are viewed that way.

PLUS, I explained that it does NOT take two hours to count 52 rabbits to see if any are dead. It takes only a few minutes - during the week OR on a weekend. It's my understanding that all they do is look at the animal and make a note of the time on a card if the animal appears sick or dead. So, that's maybe 2 seconds per live animal and 10 seconds per newly dead animal.

So, in MY OPINION, your reading is NOT correct.

But, clearly the only way this dispute can be resolved is by someone who does such things at USAMRIID explaining exactly what is done and how long it takes. I don't have contact with any such person. He or she could provide FACTS instead of worthless opinions.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post of his opinions. Here is his post in its entirety:

-----------------Ed is confused. Night checks involve someone coming in after hours. They are not already at work. Numerous documents on the precise issue -- including the protocols outlining what is involved have been uploaded -- but he hasn't read them. Ed says "that's maybe 2 seconds per live animals and 10 seconds per newly dead animal." Let me guess. Ed doesn't have any pets that lived.--------------------

"DXer" is demonstrating once again that he understands nothing -- particularly all the irrelevant documents he posts to Lew's site.

No one said anything about night checks. But they would be no different from weekend checks. Someone would have to take a couple hours out of their evening at home to drive into work to check on the animals. Once they have gone through the process of changing clothes and showering, the actual checking on the animals takes just a few minutes. Then they have to change clothes and shower again to leave before driving home. All that would be part of the "two hours" it would take to do animal checks.

DXer reads irrelevant documents and fantasizes that Ivins would have to perform necropsies, cleaning of cages, incineration of dead animals, perform funeral chants and etc. All the checks involved was looking in each cage to see if the animal was okay, and if the animal was dead or dying, to make a note to that effect on a card attached to the cage.

From page 32 of the Amerithrax Summary:

When confronted with his suspicious pattern of hours worked in the lab, Dr. Ivins’s only explanation was that he “liked to go there to get away from a difficult home life.” He could not give a legitimate, science-related reason for being there during these hours, and none was documented in any of his lab notebooks.

and

It bears mention that during the first five days of this second phase, Dr. Ivins did make notations regarding the health of some mice involved in a study being conducted by another colleague – thus justifying his presence in the lab for a short time on each of those days (Friday, September 28 through Tuesday, October 2). However, the first three of those days, he was in the hot suites for well over an hour, far longer than necessary to check to see if any mice were dead. And for the three nights before each mailing window, Dr. Ivins was in the hot suites for between two and four hours each night, with absolutely no explanation.

Taking care of animals IN NO WAY ACCOUNTS FOR IVINS "UNEXPLAINED HOURS IN B3.

DXer is just arguing to try to put the FBI on the defensive, to make them prove that Ivins could not possibly have been doing something legitimate. It's a Truther argument. Not something that needs to be seriously considered.

In another attempted post about his unsubstantiated opinions, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous" wrote: "Once again, Ed relies on a prosecutor's assertions rather than the actual documentary evidence that has been uploaded -- and note that documentary evidence was kept from Dr. Ivins. No one would be able to recreate their time without the documents."

DXer uploaded NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE supporting his beliefs. All he uploaded were IRRELEVANT DOCUMENTS - documents about general practices at USAMRIID, NOT about what Ivins was doing on any specific night.

The notebooks that were kept from Ivins were kept from him so he couldn't destroy more evidence. They contained NOTHING that provided reasons for him to be at work during those "unexplained" hours. Arguing that they contained such information is a conspiracy theory that the FBI was framing Ivins and preventing him from explaining his actions.

How many FBI agents and DOJ personnel does DXer believe were involved in this massive conspiracy to frame Dr. Ivins?

In another attempted post this afternoon, DXer wrote:

-------------------Ed writes:

"The issue of Bacillus subtilis was not testable."

Oh yeah, Ed? Why was that? Why couldn't all suspect labs have been swabbed for the genetically distinctive subtilis?--------------------

The issue is "not testable" because Bacillus subtilis is virtually everywhere. It's in the ground, it's in the air, it's on our clothes., it's in our bodies. And there are many varieties of Bacillus subtilis.

Therefore, there is NO WAY to prove conclusively where a sample came from. There's no test you can perform to conclusively prove an unidentified sample came from lab A or could NOT have come from lab B. If it isn't there today, it could have been there before the last cleaning. Or it could be in a place that wasn't tested.

DXer should play the first of the three videos of Paul Kemp at the 2010 conspiracy theorists meeting. Within the first thirty seconds, Kemp makes it clear he does NOT think the FBI was trying to "railroad" Ivins. And Kemp even points out how Rachel Lieber was concerned for Ivins' health and safety after his "meltdown" at the group therapy session. She called Kemp because he was afraid he might commit suicide.

I can quote Kemp's exact words, if necessary, but there can be no doubt that Kemp does NOT agree with DXer that the FBI was trying to frame Ivins by preventing him from checking his notebooks.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog. He wrote: "Ed, why don't you cite support for the proposition that the genetically matching subtilis is everywhere. The FBI found the genetically matching subtilis NOWHERE.

Note how DXer distorts what I wrote. I said absolutely NOTHING about "genetically matching subtilis."

If I wanted to write something on that topic, I would have written that it cannot be stated in court that a match was NOT in a specific lab in the past, because (1) labs are cleaned from time to time and (2) it's virtually impossible to swab every nook and cranny in a laboratory to verify that there is no ""genetically matching subtilis" anywhere in the lab.

The Bacillus subtilis in the attack spores was CONTAMINATION. That means it got there UNINTENTIONALLY.

DXer also wrote: "As for not returning Dr. Ivins' notebooks, Ed, have you ever heard of something called a photocopy machine? The idea that the FBI could take the only copy of notebooks in a search and seizure, not return them -- and then fault Ivins for not being able to recreate events from a half decade earlier without them -- is foolish. I have uploaded Paul Kemp's video in which he explains that he laid out Ivins alibi relating to the experiments at meeting in July 2008."

As I stated in the post above, contrary to DXer's beliefs, Paul Kemp states very clearly within the first 30 seconds of the first clip that he does NOT believe the FBI was trying to "railroad" Ivins - as DXer implies.

Ivins had no alibi, so Kemp cannot say he had an alibi. DXer is just distorting the facts again.

DXer also wrote:------------------------------------Similarly, it was very wrong to not provide Dr. Ivins all the documents it had -- including his emails -- so as to help reconstruct his time.

The FBI did not even get the computer record that he attended his group therapy that evening until after his suicide.

You regularly make claims without support to more than the prosecutors or investigators spin. Instead, you should be citing and quoting the documentary evidence, such as the October 5, 2001 email reporting on the number of rabbits that had died.

If you took an evidence-based approach -- rather than conclusory assertion based approach -- your posts would be replete with hyperlinks to documents. You don't because all you have are your assumptions and spin -- not documentary support.--------------------

I'll repeat once again: DXER HAS PROVIDED NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF ANY VALUE REGARDING HIS "RABBIT THEORY."

He provides IRRELEVANT material about general practices. He provides NOTHING that places Ivins in a specific place doing a specific task.

I, on the other hand, have provided DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE showing that Ivins "unexplained hours" in his lab fit perfectly with him being the anthrax mailer. Example: After the first mailing he suddenly had little reason to go into B3 for weeks. The same is true after the second mailing. And, when the culprit would have been making anthrax, Ivins was in his lab with NO EXPLANATION FOR BEING THERE.

Click HERE for a step by step description of WHERE AND WHEN Ivins almost certainly made the anthrax powders. All the SOURCES are listed and cited.

DXer, on the other hand, just dumps a pile of meaningless documents onto Lew's site and CLAIMS it is "documentary evidence" of something. But he cannot provide any EXPLANATION of how those documents prove ANYTHING, because they do NOT prove anything. Without any explanation of how DXer interprets the content of the documents, they are MEANINGLESS. They would only have meaning if that meaning can be logically explained. DXer is either incapable or unwilling to do that.

FWIW, I just watched those 3 Paul Kemp videos again (probably for the fifth or sixth time). They mostly just show how IGNORANT Kemp was of the facts of the case. Plus, Kemp went on and on about how Ivins never confessed, as if it was some kind of standard that all killers repeatedly confess to their crimes. That's just plain silly.

It's an argument from a lawyer trying to poke holes in the FBI's case. But, if you know the facts of the case, all the videos do is show that Mr. Kemp does NOT KNOW the facts of the case.

Your OPINION shows you are misreading things and arguing about words again, as usual.==========================================Since I'm a linguist I don't apologize for 'arguing about words'. It is, among other things, what I do. And not infrequently the arguments are with myself.------------------------------------http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/it-would-take-1-hour-and-50-minutes-to-autoclave-animal-pans-and-cages-90-minute-steam-cycle-and-20-minute-drying-cycle/

The above gives the time requirements for the autoclaving that would accompany the discovery of dead animals in the trials. It is consistentwith 2 hours being necessary, at a bare minimum.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous" attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:

----------------------------------To the contrary, in the 302 dated, April 17, 2003, Dr. Ivins explained that "he had used the lyophilizer to make MPL PA vaccine. This vaccine is made from a detoxified product from Gram negative bacteria and it is used as a non-specific immunity booster." It's a hoot that you take the spin of the prosecutors -- like Taylor's claim on August 8, 2008 (see transcript) he used the lyophilizer -- and then spin that to tell us what Taylor really meant. Then you merely restate the assertion in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary that mischaracterizes what Ivins actually said. Ivins instead said he used the lyophilizer used the lyophilizer to make MPL PA vaccine."

You need to start providing citations, Ed, because you generate errors every day you post.--------------------

I provide citations and DXer complains that, because it's an official citation from an official document, it doesn't meet his standards. His standards evidently require meaningless, irrelevant documents that say nothing of value, since that is all he seems to be able to post.

DXer twists what US Attorney Jeff Taylor said in a press conference and then complains that I am "spinning what Taylor really meant."

Here's what it says on page 38 of the Amerithrax Summary about Ivins and the lyophilizer:

For example, in an interview on January 29, 2002, Dr. Ivins said he had no involvement in the anthrax mailings and had no training in how to make powders. Similarly, in an e-mail to an international anthrax expert, dated February 7, 2002, he stated: “We work with anthrax spore suspensions here and have neither the expertise nor the equipment for generating ‘spore powder.’” When asked about the lyophilizer again a year later, in April 2003, Dr. Ivins stated that he had been trained on how to use it, but had not actually done so since the mid1990s.

So, DXer says there is a 302 somewhere that says that on April 17, 2003, Ivins said he used the lyophilizer to dry some materials.

However, the Amerithrax Summary says that before that time Ivins repeatedly said he didn't know how to make powders and hadn't used the lypophilzer since the "mid 1990s."

I don't have any notes on where to find Ivins' comments about the lyophilizer, but it seems a good bet that they are probably in the same file that DXer cites without providing a link or document number. Maybe that is why he didn't provide the link or document number.

Second, as a renowned expert in the production and purification of anthrax spores, Dr. Ivins was one of a handful of scientists with the capability to create spores of the concentration and purity used in the attacks. The affidavits allege that, not only did Dr. Ivins create and maintain the spore batch used in the mailings, but he also had access to and experience using a lyophilizer. A lyophilizer is a sophisticated machine that is used to dry pathogens, and can be used to dry anthrax. We know others in Dr. Ivins’ lab consulted him when they needed to use this machine.

and

QUESTION: Sir, two questions. Is there any evidence at all that Dr. Ivins, based on his knowledge of his coworker, somehow framed or set up Dr. Hatfield? And secondly, given the fact that this guy had mental problems going back to 2000, you allege, how is it possible that a guy of his state of mind could have tricked the FBI for so long into thinking it was somebody else, or at least not him? The first question is about Dr. --

MR. TAYLOR: There's no evidence to indicate anything like that. With respect to the second question, no. As I said, the evidence was followed by the FBI. They conducted an exhaustive investigation, narrowing the universe. Eventually, as I said, the key breakthrough was the science that then focused their attention laser-like onto that flask and the person who had control of that flask and the person who made the spores in that flask. And then furthermore, as the investigation continues, we learn -- we can exclude others. We learn about the lyophilizer and his expertise in using that and how that could have been used to dry those spores.

In both of those comments, Mr. Taylor is VERY careful to NOT say that the spores were actually dried by a lyophilizer. He very carefully says only that Ivins "could" have used a lyophilizer to dry the spores.

And here is what Dr. Majidi said in the August 18, 2008 news conference:

---------------QUESTION: Can I ask a question about the equipment and what was used to make this, potentially, and whether it was at Fort Detrick? Was it just a lyophilizer or something more sophisticated?

DR. MAJIDI: You know we really -- we really don't have the -- we don't really have any answers for what process was used to grow additional spores or what methodology was used to dry them. I think that a lot of folks focus on the issue of lyophilizer. You can ask any of the folks and the panel members, and they will tell you that you can dry biological samples in one of dozens of ways. lyophilizer is one of them. You can let the samples heat-dry. You can let the samples -- the water evaporate. You can --

QUESTION: Do speed vac.

QUESTION: What was that?

QUESTION: Use a speed vac.

DR. MAJIDI: So again, I don't want to get wrapped around the issue of how was a sample processed. The critical issue --

QUESTION: Isn't that part -- an important part of the evidence, though?

DR. MAJIDI: Well, no. The important part of the evidence is that the materials of the letter with the genetic mutations could exclusively be related only to RMR-1029.---------------------

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just sent me an email with the subject: "Ed, to demonstrate that Ivins was lying you would want to quote where he lied and not the accusation

and this was the body of the email:

Otherwise, you are just repeating the false accusation.

I would think that prudence would prompt you to not say he was lying without actually turning to what he said.

There's no reason to believe it was a "false accusation." The statements in the Summary report are pretty specific.

Besides, if I was able to locate the "302," it probably wouldn't contain Ivins' exact words. It would only contain what the FBI agent reported.

When I went through all those 302's years ago, I made 55 pages of notes. Looking through those notes didn't enable me to find the exact 302's referred to in the Amerithrax Summary. And, I don't know if I want to spend the time to hunt for them.

Note that DXer doesn't provide a link to or file number or page number for the "302 dated, April 17, 2003" that he cites.

That would be a good place to start to look for the 302's with the "lies."

If I can find the time, I might try hunting for the actual 302s tomorrow.

For some unknown reason, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") sent me two emails this morning containing pages from two FBI documents. The subject was fermenters, but the pages say nothing meaningful. Plus, DXer doesn't say where the pages originated. He provides no links. So, I don't know what his intent was.

I have a file of notes I wrote while going through the thousands of pages of supplementary documents that were released at the same time the Amerithrax Investigation Summary was released. I did a search for "fermenters" though those notes to see if I could find DXer's pages. I couldn't. But, I found one note that might be of interest:

A virulent, spore forming strain of BA would not be used in the fermenter because it would be a safety issue. Due to the size of the fermenter, and the mess it created in the room where it was located, it would be impossible to ensure complete decontamination after use with a spore-former. The fermenter was not portable, and was located in a room dedicated specifically for the fermenter. In order to remove the fermenter, a wall would have to be removed.

Ah! The other page that "DXer" sent me had only the "Fermentor" paragraph that can be found on page 2 of FBI file #347373, a.k.a. "page 24 of 59" on the FBI's web site. Click HERE to view the full document.

Unfortunately, DXer appears incapable of explaining anything, and therefore could not explain why he sent the page/paragraph to me.

No response, huh?I figured as much. Your website and your blog are both one-way streets for self aggrandizement. Cocoons in which you keep yourself insulated from the truth. Bruce Ivins is your flawed leaking nuclear power plant in which you have too much invested.

Just keep working on your sci-fi novel and make it better than your Bruce Ivins novel.

I responded to your post of the 27th on the 28th. It's 9 posts above this post. Click HERE to go to it if you do not know how to scroll up.

Vidocq also wrote: "Bruce Ivins is your flawed leaking nuclear power plant in which you have too much invested."

I don't have anything invested in the Bruce Ivins solution. Before it was announced that Ivins was the anthrax killer, I thought it was "most likely" that someone in New Jersey sent the anthrax letters. But, I had nothing invested in that hypothesis, either. When better facts were presented, I change my views.

I'm just here to sort out the facts and evidence, and to show people who only understand beliefs and opinions that there's a whole different world where beliefs and opinions are meaningless and worthless. Only facts and evidence have value.

Your beliefs and opinions demonstrate that very clearly. They're of no value here.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just sent me another meaningless document. It's a 9-page "information paper" that he has also shown on Lew's blog.

He gives no explanation for why he sent it, of course. Evidently, he sees something of value in it. But, as usual, he cannot explain to others what it is that he sees. So, while it might be interesting if some explanation were included, it is worthless and pointless without such explanation.

Perhaps DXer thinks the document is "self-explanatory." But, it's really just another demonstration of his inability to intelligently communicate his beliefs and theories.

Way upthread, Mister Lake responding to me:-----------R. Rowley wrote: "To prove a person guilty of a crime (ANY CRIME, regardless of the suspect/defendant), there has to be evidence (and substantial evidence) that the person USED that means. It's conspicuously absent in Amerithrax."

Mr. Rowley makes NO SENSE. -----------------------------------Let's let the readers make up their own minds on that one, shall we?--------------Someone USED some technique to make anthrax powders to kill 5 and injure 17. The question is: Who did it? There is a mountain of evidence that says Dr. Ivins did it=================================="SOMEONE" is the word, it seems to me, that should have been in all-caps, rather than the word "used", because the lyophilzer was brought up BY THE TASK FORCE/DEPT OF JUSTICE, no later than August 6th 2008 as part of (then) 6 skeins of evidence against the later Bruce Ivins. In February of 2010, the lyophilizer was again brought up by the DoJ as part of the evidence against Ivins.

In other words: (Task Force/DoJ reasoning):

1) SOMEONE used drying/purifying techniques to produce the Amerithrax powders.

2) Bruce Ivins had great familiarity with/access to* a lyophilizer in his lab, as well as continual access to the substrain used.

*It is in the matter of the 'access to' that the DoJ got it wrong and admitted so inmid-2010 to head off a potential loss on that point in the civil suit with Maureen Stephens.=============================Mister Lake, over the course now of several years, has stood this reasoning on its head (in every sense of that expression save only the literal one!): (his reasoning):

1) Bruce Ivins prepared/sent the anthrax.

2) He must have used SOME method.

3) Ergo, if the lyophilizer was unavailable in the fall of 2001, Ivins must have used some OTHER method of drying.-------------This isn't illogical at all, but it ASSUMES (see point #1) the very thing under dispute, and thus is no evidence of Ivins' guilt. And that's why the DoJ was so reluctant to admit the lyophilizer misrepresentation. It doesn't prove Ivins' innocence but it removes entirely what was originally presented as a sure-fire methodology used by the alleged perpetrator.

R. Rowley wrote: "Let's let the readers make up their own minds on that one, shall we?"

Nope. The purpose of this blog is to explain facts and evidence to HELP people understand the anthrax case. "Letting people make up their own minds" generally means to leave they have ignorant opinions. No one can make up someone else's mind, but we can certainly help them understand right from wrong.

Here's an example of an "ignorant opinion":

"It is in the matter of the 'access to' that the DoJ got it wrong and admitted so in mid-2010 to head off a potential loss on that point in the civil suit with Maureen Stephens."

The "DOJ" did not get it wrong. One lawyer in a CIVIL case in Florida wrote something in a document that was incorrect. The scandal-hungry media jumped on this as if it was an opinion from the entire Department of Justice. It was just a simple error made by one lawyer in Florida, and it was quickly corrected.

Mr. Rowley also provided another example of an ignorant opinion when he wrote: "Ergo, if the lyophilizer was unavailable in the fall of 2001, Ivins must have used some OTHER method of drying."

No. The facts and evidence say that Bruce Ivins AIR DRIED the attack spores. He had the ability to air dry spores in his own lab, in his biosafety cabinet. There would have been NO REASON for him to use the lyophilizer. AIR DRYING spores in his biosafety cabinet was simple, relatively safe, and it would result in spores that would look like something an Islamic terrorist could make in a basement or garage. I have a web page which explains step-by-step how Ivins most likely made the attack spores. Click HERE to read it.

It seems that the MAIN reason the DOJ brought up the lyophilizer was because IVINS LIED ABOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE LYOPHILIZER. It was another example of Ivins trying to mislead the investigation. Ivins said that he wasn't very knowledgeable about the lyophilizer, yet he was the person who taught newly hired scientists how to use it, he was the one who got USAMRIID to buy it, and he was the one responsible for it.

Mr. Rowley also provided another example of an ignorant opinion when he wrote: "Ergo, if the lyophilizer was unavailable in the fall of 2001, Ivins must have used some OTHER method of drying."

No. The facts and evidence say that Bruce Ivins AIR DRIED the attack spores.====================================Then you should be able to NAME those "facts and evidence"! In going over this subtopic DOZENS of times on this (and other?) venue(s), you never have done that.

"Facts and evidence" of Bruce Ivins "air drying" would be:

1) a document saying that he did that. EVER in his (then) 20 year career at USAMRIID.

2) eyewitnesses saying they saw Ivins "air drying" anthrax at USAMRIID. EVER, in his 20 year career there.

3) e-mails from Ivins stating that he air-dried anthrax. EVER, in his 20 year career there.

4) some physical feature of the powder itself indicating the processing was done via air-drying (though, again, this would not point to Ivins specifically, it would point to anyone with air-drying experience(?John Ezzell?) or someone mentored by some-one with such experience (Hatfill mentored by William Patrick)). An air-drying technique would actually point AWAY from Ivins.

All such evidence conspicuously absent from the end-of-investigation document and all subsequent document dumps.

Instead Mister Lake AGAIN talks merely about 'potential', a potential ('air-drying') shared by ANY potential Amerithrax perpetrator. Instead of "facts and evidence" we get Lakeian speculation 1) that that was done (the air-drying) and 2) that it was Bruce Ivins who did it.

Not evidence in the slightest.(In fact NOWHERE does the government's case against Ivins even SPECULATE that Ivins air dried anthrax; that's Lake's tweaking of the government's case in a forlorn effort to save it).

R. Rowley once again will accept only evidence that meets his standards. And he argues, "In fact NOWHERE does the government's case against Ivins even SPECULATE that Ivins air dried anthrax; that's Lake's tweaking of the government's case in a forlorn effort to save it)."

Here's a passage from the August 18, 2008 press conference. I cited this same passage in a response to DXer above, but didn't provide a link. To go a copy of the Aug. 18, 2008 press conference, click HERE

Here's the passage again:

-------------------- QUESTION: Can I ask a question about the equipment and what was used to make this, potentially, and whether it was at Fort Detrick? Was it just a lyophilizer or something more sophisticated?

DR. MAJIDI: You know we really -- we really don't have the -- we don't really have any answers for what process was used to grow additional spores or what methodology was used to dry them. I think that a lot of folks focus on the issue of lyophilizer. You can ask any of the folks and the panel members, and they will tell you that you can dry biological samples in one of dozens of ways. lyophilizer is one of them. You can let the samples heat-dry. You can let the samples -- the water evaporate. You can --

QUESTION: Do speed vac.

QUESTION: What was that?

QUESTION: Use a speed vac.

DR. MAJIDI: So again, I don't want to get wrapped around the issue of how was a sample processed. The critical issue --

QUESTION: Isn't that part -- an important part of the evidence, though?

DR. MAJIDI: Well, no. The important part of the evidence is that the materials of the letter with the genetic mutations could exclusively be related only to RMR-1029. --------------------------

So, HOW the spores were dried is NOT -- REPEAT NOT -- an important part of the evidence against Dr. Ivins, since there are various ways he could have done it and gotten the same results.

Truthers endlessly want to argue something that cannot be proven to show that there is no evidence, while they ignore all the actual evidence that shows that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer.

The "evidence" that Ivins air dried the spores is (1) the the fact that air drying is the most logical way to do it, (2) the fact air drying is the easiest way to do it, since you have to work to PREVENT it from happening, (3) using a lyophilizer would have been a STUPID way of doing it because of where the lyophilizer was located, and (4) most other ways would easily have left traces of chemicals behind as evidence of the process used.

The "evidence" that Ivins air dried the spores is (1) the the fact that air drying is the most logical way to do it=====================That's not evidence, that's SPECULATION! Or, at best, some 'logical' assertion.====================== (2) the fact air drying is the easiest way to do it, since you have to work to PREVENT it from happening*, =====================Speculation.====================(3) using a lyophilizer would have been a STUPID way of doing it [...]=======================Speculation.

And it should be noted that in the crucial period, August 2008 (whenJeff Taylor first introduced the lyophilizer as part of the case against Ivins) up to mid-2011 (a period just shy of 3 solid years!), Mister Lake had NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER with the lyophilizer being the technique/equipment used. It was only after the DoJ filed its 'correction' to avoid being back-footed in the Maureen Stevens civil case that Lake developed this tweaking of the government's case. And it doesn't point specifically at Ivins AT ALL.

http://www.propublica.org/article/justice-department-retracts-court-filings-that-undercut-fbis-anthrax-case------------------------(4) most other ways would easily have left traces of chemicals behind as evidence of the process used. =================================All you've told us here is that air-drying is the technique YOU would have used. There's no evidence that air-drying was used, whether by Ivins or by someone else who did the crimes. Null and void. Non-evidence "evidence".

*Have to work to prevent WHAT from happening? I think you've bewildered many a reader with that formulation.

So, HOW the spores were dried is NOT -- REPEAT NOT -- an important part of the evidence against Dr. Ivins[...]================================That is belied by what Jeff Taylor said on August 6th. You know, Jeff Taylor, one of the DoJ attorneys who would have presented the case in court, had Ivins lived. Dr Majidi, a scientist, would have had a role in the trial ONLY if he had been called as a witness. A peripheral role.

It is also belied by what's in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary (see: page 36)

And finally it is belied by the DoJ's own July of 2011 'corrective' filing, a filing which once again put the lyophilizer front and center. Would they have bothered with the 'correction' if it was, at best, a MINOR piece of evidence? Don't think so. If you recall the situation in the summer of 2011, Maureen Stevens' lawyers were ready to proceed with their civil action based on the assumption that someone OTHER THAN Bruce Ivins had committed the crimes and the government, allowing that substrain to be abused by (an)other(s), was negligent. Meaning they were prepared to say that the non-availability of the lyophilizer ITSELF indicated someone other than Ivins, in a place other than his building, likely did the drying/purifying.

The passage cited by Mister Lake of Dr Majidi is important however: it shows how the Task Force/DoJ attorneys tried to gloss over any and all discrepancies involved in their case against Ivins. See: extensive treatment by yours truly of Jeff Taylor's evasive answer when asked about handwriting comparison(s). (See: very first post(s) from thread beginning in early February 2012:http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/02/feb-5-feb-11-2012-discussions.html

Discrepancies between what the attorneys said/wrote and what scientists and handwriting professionals were saying don't point to a stronger case but to a weaker one.

Truthers endlessly want to argue something that cannot be proven to show that there is no evidence, while they ignore all the actual evidence that shows that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer.====================================There is no such evidence. The only solid evidence in the case is: that the genetic profile indicates that the flask (RMR_1029) was likely a parent of the attack anthrax. That doesn't point to Ivins alone. All the rest is: poor psychology; a 100% spurious "amino acid code"; a lyophilizer that turned out to be unusable; a hidden-by-the-government handwriting evaluation that was exonerating of Ivins; a dishonest characterization of Ivins' career status in 2001 (How many persons, reading the Amerithrax Investigative Summary alone, could have guessed that Ivins was 2 years away from winning a highly prestigious award?). That Mister Lake cannot admit the obvious, that the case against Ivins was extremely weak, tells us much about Mister Lake but little about who really committed Amerithrax.

R. Rowley wrote in a message above, "There's no evidence that air-drying was used, whether by Ivins or by someone else who did the crimes. Null and void. Non-evidence "evidence".

*Have to work to prevent WHAT from happening? I think you've bewildered many a reader with that formulation."

A scientist has to work to PREVENT spores from drying out all by themselves. Things that are WET will dry out in the open air if you do not PREVENT it. A child of five knows that. Scientists also know it.

As I stated, the evidence says the "most likely" method that Ivins would have use to dry the spores is air drying, perhaps with a little heat added to speed up the drying process. He easily could do it in his biosafety cabinet. The air coming in from the outside would dry the spores, and the filters would prevent any aerosolized spores from escaping into the lab. (That's the PURPOSE of a biosafety cabinet.) PLUS, some biosafety cabinets have a heating element in the table. Heat will speed up the drying process.

Any other method would require either taking dangerous risks or possibly leaving behind signature chemicals.

And, as an added benefit of the air drying method, it's a relatively crude technique and would fit the plan to make the letters look like some al Qaeda terrorist made them in a cave with minimal equipment.

R. Rowley also wrote: "That is belied by what Jeff Taylor said on August 6th. You know, Jeff Taylor, one of the DoJ attorneys who would have presented the case in court, had Ivins lived. Dr Majidi, a scientist, would have had a role in the trial ONLY if he had been called as a witness. A peripheral role."

Total nonsense. Jeff Taylor made it clear that a lyophilizer was a device that Ivins COULD HAVE used. He said nothing about what device or method was actually used. And, since the FBI's case involved a LOT of science, Dr. Majidi would certainly have been a MAJOR witness.

And, in the post immediately above, Mr. Rowley repeats his ABSURD assertion: There is no such evidence [showing that Ivins was the anthrax killer]."

He then shows once again that he doesn't consider anything to be evidence unless BY ITSELF it proves Ivins guilty. And he absurdly argues that because Ivins won an award, that somehow means he was innocent.

All Mr. Rowley does is prove again and again and again that he has no comprehension of how circumstantial evidence is used in court.

R. Rowley clearly demonstrated his abysmal ignorance of circumstantial evidence with the following comment: "The only solid evidence in the case is: that the genetic profile indicates that the flask (RMR_1029) was likely a parent of the attack anthrax. That doesn't point to Ivins alone."

Generally speaking, NONE of the evidence in a circumstantial case points only to ONE person.

Evidence item #1 may point to suspects A, B, C and D.Evidence item #2 may point to suspects A, C, J, K and L.Evidence item #3 may point to suspects C, J, L and M.Evidence item #4 may point to suspects A, C, D, K, L and M.

Which means that the ONLY person that ALL the evidence points to is C.

In the Ivins case there would be more than just 4 items of evidence, of course. There would be dozens. And the jury would see that the ONLY person ALL the evidence points to is Dr. Bruce Ivins.

Why is that so difficult for Mr. Rowley to comprehend? It's the basis behind virtually ALL criminal cases that go to trial. If there was a piece of evidence that pointed ONLY to one person, there generally wouldn't be a trial. The suspect would typically agree to a plea bargain.

It seems that the MAIN reason the DOJ brought up the lyophilizer was because IVINS LIED ABOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE LYOPHILIZER. It was another example of Ivins trying to mislead the investigation.============================================I think a more NEUTRAL formulation would be: Ivins downplayed his knowledge of/familiarity with the lyophilizer because he knew he was being asked about it in connection with the Amerithrax crimes. If 99% plus of researchers' time at USAMRIID was spent dealing with WET anthrax, then his experience (and that of most others who weren't holdovers from the pre-1972 offensive BW program(s)) would HAVE to be rather limited. That's exactly why that lyophilizer could sit unused and unusable month after month after month in 2001: they only had to dry anthrax once in a blue moon and that usually for some special project such as what DARPA had going on some years earlier.

Blaming Ivins for the fact that a whole skein of Task Force/DoJ 'evidence' is mistaken or fraudulent is the height of chutzpah.

Mr. Rowley wrote: "I think a more NEUTRAL formulation would be: Ivins downplayed his knowledge of/familiarity with the lyophilizer because he knew he was being asked about it in connection with the Amerithrax crimes."

That's not "neutral." That's just using different words to repeat what I said: Ivins LIED about his knowledge of how to use the lyophilizer.

It's shows "consciousness of guilt." If he wasn't guilty, he'd have no reason to LIE.

Plus, Mr. Rowley shows his ignorance of the evidence by suggesting that the lyophilizer was ONLY used to dry anthrax. The one in Suite B5 was apparently purchased to dry lots of different materials.

It seems that the ONLY time a lyophilizer was used to dry anthrax was for that DARPA experiment - and then it could easily have been a DIFFERENT lyophilizer. FBI file #847443 (aka file 29 of 50) says on page 43 that there was brand new a lyophilizer in Building 1412. Sometime in 2001, the old one they had was traded in for a new one.

Since the entire building at 1412 was a BSL-3 area, that would seem like a more logical place to dry anthrax spores -- even if it was "inactivated" anthrax spores.

However, I think I read someplace that there was also a THIRD lyophilizer somewhere at USAMRIID.

Mr. Rowley wrote: "I think a more NEUTRAL formulation would be: Ivins downplayed his knowledge of/familiarity with the lyophilizer because he knew he was being asked about it in connection with the Amerithrax crimes."

That's not "neutral." That's just using different words to repeat what I said: Ivins LIED about his knowledge of how to use the lyophilizer.========================================Mister Lake, "lying" and "downplaying" are not synonyms. Even in Wisconsin. So your response was not responsive.

The rest is just you playing amateur psychologist. "Consciousness of guilt". And thereby convincing no one.

I suppose if Ivins had said he was thoroughly experienced with the USING* the lyophilizer, then when the unusability of the lyophilizer in that building came to light, you would THEN have said that Ivins "lied" in the other direction to deflect the investigators from the realization that he actually used 'air-drying'. See how imputations of 'lying' are easy to make?

*"using the lyophilizer". As I understand it, Ivins was merely 'expert' because he took a course around the time the lyophilizer was purchased (circa 1996?), this would probably have made him more 'expert' than most at USAMRIID, but course/book knowledge isn't the same as hands-on experience, something that seems to be missing in Ivins' case. On account of the wet anthrax being ideal for the purposes of vaccine and treatment scientists.

R. Rowley wrote: "As I understand it, Ivins was merely 'expert' because he took a course around the time the lyophilizer was purchased (circa 1996?), this would probably have made him more 'expert' than most at USAMRIID, but course/book knowledge isn't the same as hands-on experience, something that seems to be missing in Ivins' case."

If you will look at DXer's comments in this thread HERE, you will see DXer wrote:

"To the contrary, in the 302 dated, April 17, 2003, Dr. Ivins explained that "he had used the lyophilizer to make MPL PA vaccine."

"The affidavits allege that, not only did Dr. Ivins create and maintain the spore batch used in the mailings, but he also had access to and experience using a lyophilizer. A lyophilizer is a sophisticated machine that is used to dry pathogens, and can be used to dry anthrax. We know others in Dr. Ivins’ lab consulted him when they needed to use this machine."

If you instruct others on how to use a device, doesn't that make you "the expert"? If not, what does?

R. Rowley posted THREE messages last night. The first is buried in the middle of other discussions above, with no way to post a response right after it. Click HERE to view the post.

In the post, Mr. Rowley provides this example of worthless and irrelevant information:

"The above gives the time requirements for the autoclaving that would accompany the discovery of dead animals in the trials. It is consistent with 2 hours being necessary, at a bare minimum."

But the idea that Ivins would autoclave dead animals during evening and weekend animal checks is PREPOSTEROUS.

Why would he do that? The animal will be just as dead in the morning when the staff of animal caretakers can dispose of the animal. Ivins was a scientist, not a janitor or animal disposal technician. Plus, he was notoriously bad at keeping is own lab clean, so why would he do cleanup chores at night or on weekends that were NOT HIS JOB?

Ivins was doing SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS. A dead animal would likely, perhaps almost certainly require a necropsy. No competent scientist does a necropsy by himself in the middle of the night. It could invalidate the findings. And there is NO REASON to do such a thing in the middle of the night - or alone on a weekend. And it would seem STUPID to do such a thing -- if it wasn't a matter of life and death to someone.

The only comment I can make this morning is that I haven't had time to find something interesting to write about because "DXer" and another Anthrax Truther have been '"tag teaming" me on my interactive blog.==========================================What "tag-teaming"?!?!?!?!DXer hasn't been permitted to post for some months. Meaning LAKE HIMSELF is the one posting DXer's stuff and thereby doing the 'tag-teaming' on the DXer end. Furthermore I haven't talked to DXer via e-mail in several months, and scarcely have looked at his 'posts' (embedded in Lake's posts) on this thread. That 'tag-teaming' concept is ITSELF a sort of 'conspiracy theory'!

"The only comment I can make this morning is that I haven't had time to find something interesting to write about because "DXer" and another Anthrax Truther seem to have been '"tag teaming" me on my interactive blog."

But I will assume that that wording still isn't precise enough for you and that you have further ridiculous complaints to make.

Since the claims of August 2008 have come up again in this thread, I did some online searching and found a contemporaneous complaint as to misrepresentations------here on the question of the printing defects in the envelopes-------made at that August 6th press conference:http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/08/07/bioterrorism-on-a-grassy-knoll/

From the linked item:"For example, Taylor made an incredibly misleading statement to suggest that the envelopes used in the attack were only available in Frederick Maryland. He claimed that, "based on the analysis, we were able to conclude that the envelopes used in the mailings were very likely sold in a post office in the Frederick, MD post office in 2001." He continued to say that Ivins maintained a PO Box "at the post office from which these pre-franked envelopes were sold.""=======================================That isn't merely 'non-precise' wording, it's stating something : 1) untrue (why do you only say that Ivins was "lying" when OBVIOUSLY lots of prevaricating was going on at that press conference, about the lyophilizer, about the printing defects in the envelopes, about the handwriting comparisons?!?!?!? Why isn't THAT 'lying'? Oh, I forgot: you're in the tank for the Task Force/DoJ!)and2) designed to make it look like the envelope HAD to have been purchased in Frederick, Maryland.

There's a pattern here: NONE of the 'imprecise language' of the DoJabout Ivins errs in a direction advantageous to Ivins, ALL of it overstatesthe case against Ivins. So, that's no coincidence.

YOU, Mister Lake, should "care". That you don't, or pretend not to, reflects on you, your objectivity etc.

R. Rowley wrote, "There's a pattern here: NONE of the 'imprecise language' of the DoJ about Ivins errs in a direction advantageous to Ivins, ALL of it overstates the case against Ivins."

Ivins' lies and misstatements are evidence in the criminal case against Ivins.==============================================There IS no "criminal case", there's merely a PR campaign (largely ended in Feb 2010) to convince the American people that Ivins did it.If you tax Ivins with lying, then you have to tax the DOJ (Ivins' prosecutors) with lying. The 'jury' of interested parties will reach their own conclusions.

(Why isn't putative Ivins' lying explained the way you/the Task Force/DoJ explain so much else, by Ivins' paranoia? Why does Ivins' mental illness only kick in when you are trying to make a ridiculous claim about him?Wouldn't paranoia cause someone to lie to criminal investigators, even if they WEREN'T major (but confidential!) suspects?!?!?!?)

R. Rowley wrote: "There IS no "criminal case", there's merely a PR campaign (largely ended in Feb 2010) to convince the American people that Ivins did it."

That's just a totally absurd opinion with no basis in reality. In their Summary Report, the government has provided a EXCELLENT criminal case against Bruce Ivins. If Mr. Rowley has a different theory about who did it, and therefore doesn't believe the evidence against Ivins, that's his problem. It doesn't change the FACT that, when viewed objectively, the DOJ had an EXCELLENT criminal case against Ivins.

R. Rowley also wrote: "If you tax Ivins with lying, then you have to tax the DOJ (Ivins' prosecutors) with lying."

Mr. Rowley is certainly free to do that. But, the DOJ just presents the criminal case against Ivins. Mr. Rowley's personal belief that the DOJ was lying is not part of that case.

Ivins was doing SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS. A dead animal would likely, perhaps almost certainly require a necropsy. No competent scientist does a necropsy by himself in the middle of the night. It could invalidate the findings======================================That's just you making stuff up. What we KNOW, based on DOCUMENTATION, is that each and every dead animal had to have its cage autoclaved. A process that was itself prolonged.

Yes, OF COURSE. But, BY WHOM and WHEN? =======================================Well, DXer will undoubtedly nail that down. Perhaps he already nailed it down and I wasn't paying attention. But the animal maintenance people, as I understand it, AREN'T dealing with infected animals, are mostly feeding the animals and cleaning their cages, not autoclaving, which doesn't fall under the category of 'caring for animals'.=======================Said another way, if the animal dies in the off hours, it is probably autoclaved in the off-hours. And most of the animal care people are 9 to 5 types, since you don't have to feed animals or clean their cages in the off-hours (except weekends, but those would probably be 9 to 5 hours on Saturday and Sunday).

That's NOT how I understand it. If the animals are in a BSL-3 suite, EVERYONE has to have all the necessary shots to enter that suite. That includes animal handlers. Therefore, there's no reason they can't deal with the dead animals.

R. Rowley also wrote: "Said another way, if the animal dies in the off hours, it is probably autoclaved in the off-hours.

No, PROBABLY NOT. The animal has to be checked by scientists first to verify that it died of a disease and not through some mishap. Necropsies may have to be performed.

In theory, if the normal work day is 8 hours, 2/3rds of the animals are going to die "off hours." There's no reason to have high-paying scientists do 2/3rds of the animal handling, feeding, cage cleaning, autoclaving, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if the animal handlers where only there on THIRD shift, when they can do their work without bothering any scientists. The fact that Ivins came in on the evenings suggests that the animal handlers do not work SECOND shift. And, there's nothing that says they MUST or DID work FIRST shift.

The key point is: Because they are immunized there's no reason the animal handlers cannot also do the menial tasks of disposing of the animal carcasses and autoclaving the cages. And there is no reason that they can't dispose of animals during one shift, regardless of what shift the animal died.

If an animal dies during third shift, who makes note of it? The animal handlers can't just dispose of the dead animal without making a note. And I don't think an animal handler can simply dispose of the animal without a scientist first examining it for cause of death.

That's NOT how I understand it. If the animals are in a BSL-3 suite, EVERYONE has to have all the necessary shots to enter that suite. That includes animal handlers. Therefore, there's no reason they can't deal with the dead animals. ========================================If you are right-----and I have no basis for gainsaying you on the point----then that makes it LESS likely that Ivins did any surreptitious "air-drying" of anthrax during the off-hours: with animal maintenance people being around to dispose of dead animals via autoclaving (which we nailed down as requiring about 110 minutes), there's no way a would-be Amerithrax mastermind is going to allow witnesses to observe what is being done with the drying.Ditto if veterinarians were around B-3 in the off-hours.

R. Rowley wrote: "If you are right-----and I have no basis for gainsaying you on the point----then that makes it LESS likely that Ivins did any surreptitious "air-drying" of anthrax during the off-hours"

I don't have the time to argue the same nonsense over and over and over.

Here's what I previously wrote:

Dr. Ivins did his work in Room B313. The animals were kept in Rooms B305 and B310. Therefore, if veterinarians were to come into Suite B3 while Ivins was at work on making the anthrax powders, they would NOT prevent Dr. Ivins from doing "as he pleased."

Additionally:

(1) The veterinarians would almost certainly take precautions to avoid disturbing any scientist who was working late hours.

(2) The veterinarians wouldn't be able to tell what Ivins was doing anyway, since they were veterinarians and not microbiologists.

(3) And if Ivins knew the times when veterinarians attended to the animals, he could avoid doing anything illegal during those times.

Dr. Ivins did his work in Room B313. The animals were kept in Rooms B305 and B310. Therefore, if veterinarians were to come into Suite B3 while Ivins was at work on making the anthrax powders, they would NOT prevent Dr. Ivins from doing "as he pleased."=========================================Nobody's talking about 'preventing' anything, we're talking about what the PRESENCE of others (animal maintenance people, veterinarians) would mean, what those persons would be capable of observing. YOUR version of the hot suites in the off-hours is not a place of assumed or assumable isolation or privacy but of a (relatively) bustling place......

R. Rowley is just being argumentative when he wrote: "Nobody's talking about 'preventing' anything, we're talking about what the PRESENCE of others (animal maintenance people, veterinarians) would mean, what those persons would be capable of observing."

They would NOT be capable of observing ANYTHING if (1) they didn't actually enter Ivins lab, which they would have no reason to do, and (2) if Ivins knew when the veterinarians etc. did their rounds, and he could avoid being there at the same time.

R. Rowley also wrote: "YOUR version of the hot suites in the off-hours is not a place of assumed or assumable isolation or privacy but of a (relatively) bustling place......"

Total NONSENSE. Mr. Rowley is just being argumentative and twisting things to make a bogus argument. Ivins worked alone in his LAB. He could do what he wanted. He was probably also alone in SUITE B3 for all or nearly all of the time. If a veterinarian happened to enter to check on animals, he or she would NOT be able to understand what Ivins was doing in room B-313 by simply looking through the window in the door. And, Ivins could stop what he was doing if he heard someone enter Suite B3.

Personally, I have no reason to believe that any vets entered Suite B3 while Ivins was making the anthrax powders. I just recognize it as a "possibility" that would NOT have interfered with what Ivins was doing.

This afternoon, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted THREE ranting posts to this blog. There's no point in quoting them in their entirety, since they are same-old same-old, and some contain personal attacks. (He doesn't think I'm qualified to have an opinion or to talk about the case, but he feels he IS qualifed, even though he doesn't seem to understand anything.)

After removing the insults, the first email said only, "You didn't even know that the rabbits would have to be challenged in the B3."

As I recall, that was made clear long ago. But, SO WHAT? Who cares where the rabbits were challenged if IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EVIDENCE AGAINST BRUCE IVINS. DXer, of course, cannot explain, because, if he attempted to explain, it would immediately become clear it MEANS NOTHING.

Removing all the blather and personal attacks, the second email says only: "The claim he was not working on an animal experiment was a grievous error that could have been avoided had people obtained and read the documents."

No one said Ivins was "not working on an animal experiment." He may have been working on a dozen animal experiments. Who cares? The only thing that matters is WHEN he was working on the animal experiments. The Amerithrax Investigation Summary states very clearly that Ivins was helping someone (almost certainly Pat Fellows) with an experiment involving mice. However, he spent "far longer [in Suite B3] than necessary to check to see if any mice were dead."

In the third email, DXer does nothing but distort what I have written. For example, he says, "Ivins never said he didn't know how to use a lyophilizer, Ed." However, he doesn't quote or say where I said such a thing. It's just nonsense DXer made up. What I said was,

"Ivins said that he wasn't very knowledgeable about the lyophilizer, yet he was the person who taught newly hired scientists how to use it, he was the one who got USAMRIID to buy it, and he was the one responsible for it.

and therefore

"Ivins LIED about his knowledge of how to use the lyophilizer."

Without providing an exact quote, DXer claims, "He [Ivins] said he didn't know how to make a virulent spore powder -- that would be too dangerous."

More distortions. Ivins actually said he had "no training in how to make powders" There's a BIG difference between not having official training and not knowing how to do something.

The rest of that third email is just DXer apparently trying to implicate John Ezzell in the crime in some way, and more of DXer's screwball ideas that what Ivins' friends say in depositions in a different case somehow overrides what the facts say in the DOJ's case against Bruce Ivins.

No one said Ivins was "not working on an animal experiment." He may have been working on a dozen animal experiments. Who cares?=====================================Evidently, the Task Force's attitude----------who cares whether Ivins was working on (an) animal(s) experiment(s) in the off-hours and thus had a legitimate reason for 'unexplained' lab time in the August to October 2001 timeframe?-------has worn off on Mister Lake. If you aren't interested in that, then I submit you aren't TRULY interested in Ivins' guilt/innocence, and I would say the same if this website were 10 times its present size and if you had written 20 books on Amerithrax. Or, put another way, your conviction that Ivins did the crimes is so engrained at this point (and has been for a few years now) that literally nothing could convince you even of the most obvious: that the case against Ivins is extremely weak. And note: one can say the case against suspect X is weak without thereby saying that suspect X is innocent, morally or legally.

Mr. Rowley is just playing word games and being argumentative. I said that it depends upon WHEN Ivins was working with animals. If he was working with animals during the day, then it would have nothing to do with the criminal case. Mr. Rowley changes my statement to "who cares whether Ivins was working on (an) animal(s) experiment(s) in the off-hours".

He has no real arguments, so he has to twist things to create FALSE arguments.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") sent me another email today. The subject was; "if you want to have a useful purpose, you could ask for a copy of the enclosure to the subpoena response titled 'Anthrax Inventory'"

And the body of the message in its entirety was:

"It occurs to me that while USAMRIID (per JAG) denied my request for the enclosure “Anthrax Shipments”, I should ask for “Anthrax Inventory” as someone has raised in an email to me.

USAMRIID gave me a massive inventory prepared by Bruce Ivins that named all the individual strains but this is an inventory that dates to 2002 and covers the facility. Moreover, it perhaps is limited only to Ames — and in any event a FOIA request could be limited to Ames.

DXer of course explained nothing. I have no idea why he sent me that email or why he would think I would care about any of that. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the anthrax attacks of 2001. It appears to be just some kind of "fishing expedition" by a lawyer looking for something to argue about.

Is it really that difficult to explain things? Or does DXer feel that if he explains anything, everyone will see the holes in what he's saying?

I have numerous examples of explanations on my web site.

Click HERE for an explanation of how Ivins most likely made the attack spores.

Click HERE for an explanation of where and when Ivins most likely made the attack spores.

Click HERE for an explanation of the errors that Ivins made which led to his downfall.

Click HERE for an explanation of the "consciousness of guilt" factors which helped to show Ivins was guilty.

Click HERE for a detailed explanation of the coded message that Dr. Ivins put in the media letter.

Hmm. I've been converting my notes from reading the 2,720 supplementary pages to the Amerithrax Investigation Summary into a web page. (It was in WORD format.)

I just noticed a comment from page 65 of FBI file #847551 which says:

"XXXX can think of no reason for Ivins to be working long nighttime hours in the August to October 2001 time-frame. There was not much work going on in Ivins' lab at that time and the only study being conducted was the guinea pig strain study, which may have required entry into the suites to check on animals. However, checking the animals would only have taken approximately 30 minutes."

"XXXX can think of no reason for Ivins to be working long nighttime hours in the August to October 2001 time-frame=============================================And what YEAR is XXXX telling the investigators that he/she "can think of no reason for Ivins to be working long nighttime hours in the August to October 2001 time-frame."?????? It matters a great deal.==================================We've been over this question MANY times before; invariably I

1) point out that it's RIDICULOUS (an old favorite word of Mister Lake's that I press into usage here) to ask a government scientist in 2005; 2006; 2007 ;or 2008 what exactly HE was doing in the lab in the off-hours in the fall of 2001. Not because it's not desireable to know, but because human beings without total recall and/or detailed personal diaries can't reasonably be expected to remember that stuff (since invariably it was many experiments and many off-hour stints ago).

Every time I mention this, Lake clams up (because he knows it to be true and logical, AND because, if our exchanges on the Internet are any indication, Lake's memory is even worse than mine is, and thus HE couldn't possibly recall such a thing).

[And please note: here we aren't talking about someone remembering their OWN activities years earlier but, putatively, the activities of a coworker, meaning that the reliability factor goes way down]*

2) I note that the Task Force refused Ivins access to his own notebook(s) from the relevant timeframe so that Ivins could reconstruct what he was doing in fall 2001. Once again, Lake has no explanation as to why the Task Force couldn't at a least have given Ivins a xeroxed copy of the notebook(s). Guess eliminating suspects isn't their bag!

*And this doesn't preclude that alongside XXXX, YYYY and ZZZZ said something completely different, along the lines of 'yeah, there were ALL KINDS of animal experiments going on in fall 2001 that would explain Bruce's presence in the lab in the off-hours!'. Selective citation----see the handwriting comparison(s)------is a leading way to deceive: first the self, then other persons.

Mr. Rowley rambles on and on and on and on about TYPICAL people not being able to remember things. The WITNESS would testify to what the situation was. The DEFENSE can then ask him how he can remember things so well. Then we would have the answer to Mr. Rowley's question. Until then, we won't.

The actual point of my post was to point out that "checking the animals would only have taken approximately 30 minutes," NOT the two hours that DXer and Mr. Rowley have been arguing. AND, those "30 minutes" could still include showering and changing clothes TWICE.

The statement about how long it takes to check on animals is clearly a GENERAL statement and has NOTHING to do with any specific time in the past.

Mr. Rowley rambles on and on and on and on about TYPICAL people not being able to remember things.==================================Uh, well I would use the word "ordinary". If you have EVIDENCE that Bruce Ivins had an extraordinary memory, then produce it. If you have EVIDENCE that XXXX had an extraordinary memory, then produce it.Given the passage of time (and how many times we've gone over this sub-topic on the Internet) I don't think you have such evidence. Therefore it is rather absurd (another old Lakeian favorite word) to expect Ivins to remember what he was doing off-hours 4 to 7 years previous. And it's absurd to not provide him with the notebook* contents so that he could reconstruct that work timeframe. AND it's absurd to think that a co-worker (whether XXXX, or YYYY) would remember that stuff accurately for him. Given that XXXX is unnamed and thus not subject to questioning, it's really a moot point.It's little more than a rumour posed as evidence. A WRITTEN rumour is no better than a spoken rumour.

Perhaps more later.------------------------------------------*No matter HOW many times we go over the notebook issue, Lake NEVER has an innocent explanation for the withholding of the notebook(s) from Ivins; he simply ignores it, evidently in the hopes that it will go away. It won't.

R. Rowley wrote: "Uh, well I would use the word "ordinary". If you have EVIDENCE that Bruce Ivins had an extraordinary memory, then produce it. If you have EVIDENCE that XXXX had an extraordinary memory, then produce it."

You are just being argumentative. No one was talking about Ivins' memory. We were talking about the USAMRIID employee who made the comment on page 65 of FBI file #847551,

What I said was that it doesn't matter what the typical (OR "ordinary" OR "extraordinary") person can remember. It only matters what THAT SPECIFIC WITNESS can remember. So, no one cares about the "typical" person's memory.

I would prefer that we know the persons name and have all the data necessary to scientific state that he knows what he's talking about. But, we just have his statement from the 302 file. So, I see no point in arguing OPINIONS over whether it's trustworthy or not.

The issue is: WHAT EVIDENCE do we have? That statement is evidence. Your OPINION about the statement is NOT evidence.

R. Rowley also wrote: "And it's absurd to not provide him with the notebook* contents so that he could reconstruct that work timeframe."

Another OPINION from Mr. Rowley. My OPINION would be that it would be STUPID of them to turn evidence over to a suspect. So, then Mr. Rowley argues that they could have turned over copies. But, it's my understanding that there were dozens of notebooks.

I'm not certain of the proper procedures in a case like that, but I am certain that Ivins would have been given access to anything that was relevant to his defense during the discovery phase of the trial. Making copies of dozens of notebooks before that time involves an expense.

It would be up to Ivins' lawyer to ask for the notebooks or copies of the notebooks.

I don't see any point in outsiders arguing over whether or not the FBI should have provided copies. We don't know all the details of that issue.

R. Rowley wrote: "Uh, well I would use the word "ordinary". If you have EVIDENCE that Bruce Ivins had an extraordinary memory, then produce it. If you have EVIDENCE that XXXX had an extraordinary memory, then produce it."

You are just being argumentative. No one was talking about Ivins' memory.========================================Yes, if you CLAIM Ivins really DID remember what he was doing in his lab in the off-hours in Sept-Oct 2001, but merely feigned a bad memory (and that is Lake's position), then OF COURSE you talking about Ivins' memory. Why did you talk in your post above mine about whether Ivins' memory was "typical" (your word), if you weren't talking about his memory?!? You make NO SENSE! You don't even seem to recall the contents of your own posts, let alone mine!----------------------. Rowley also wrote: "And it's absurd to not provide him with the notebook* contents so that he could reconstruct that work timeframe."

Another OPINION from Mr. Rowley. My OPINION would be that it would be STUPID of them to turn evidence over to a suspect.--------------------------------------------------------Why? Isn't it in the Task Force's interests to reliably ELIMINATE as many suspects as quickly as possible?!?!?!?!? Otherwise you have logjams like the Hatfill phase of the case: one man followed around the clock (remember how his foot was run over by a surveillance vehicle?). And valuable resources were wasted on Hatfill from sometime in 2002 to 2006, when any reasonable person would have concluded that most of the 'evidence' against him was merely a series of coincidences. But evidently the culture there at the FBI encourages glomming onto a suspect and then ignoring all signs of innocence (sometimes HIDING those signs, like the professional handwriting comparison done).----------------------------------------I don't see any point in outsiders arguing over whether or not the FBI should have provided copies. We don't know all the details of that issue. -------------------------------------------You could say that about ANY sub-issue in Amerithrax, and thereby absolve the Task Force/FBI of gross stupidities by the dozen. Aren't FOIA requests made precisely so that we learn those details?

And note that Lake hasn't responded to how he knows XXXX has a memory that is 'atypical'. He brought the subject up upthread thusly:"Mr. Rowley rambles on and on and on and on about TYPICAL people not being able to remember things". This suggests that XXXX's memory is somehow atypical in a positive direction. For that I would need evidence.

Mister Lake, there's not going to be a trial for XXXX to testify at. We have to do the best we can on our own to calculate whether it is REASONABLE to assume that XXXX has total recall about events of several years earlier, events involving Bruce Ivins. ASSUMING that the unknown (and I guess unidentifiaable) XXXX has a MUCH better than average memory than most people seems an unreasonable assumption.

I would prefer that we know the persons name and have all the data necessary to scientific state that he knows what he's talking about. But, we just have his statement from the 302 file.==========================================As I said (downthread? I'm getting dizzy!), that's just the bureaucratic equivalent of a rumour. It can have no weight in evaluating what Ivins was likely doing in fall 2001, and you have provided no rationale for giving it any weight. All things being equal, Ivins would most likely remember what he was doing in off hours in late 2001 better than any coworker, just as the coworker would remember what he/she was doing then better than Ivins would. Duh!

The notebook is the best bet to nail it down. Guess why the notebook has never surfaced?

Mr. Rowley continues to argue many different things at once. He doesn't keep track of answers from previous discussions. And, of course, he constantly twists and distorts things to create new arguments about words.

Mr. Rowley wrote: "You could say that about ANY sub-issue in Amerithrax, and thereby absolve the Task Force/FBI of gross stupidities by the dozen. Aren't FOIA requests made precisely so that we learn those details?"

That may be why DXer is sending in FOIA requests. But, he hasn't found anything worthwhile so far in a decade of trying. All he finds are reasons to ask more questions and file more FOIA requests.

I haven't used any documents found via FOIA requests to dispute things said by Mr. Rowley or DXer.

I'm here to argue FACTS AND EVIDENCE. I explain the evidence. You say you don't believe the evidence. But, you have no meaningful evidence to counter the FBI's evidence. So, we just waste time arguing opinions.

R. Rowley also wrote: "We have to do the best we can on our own to calculate whether it is REASONABLE to assume that XXXX has total recall about events of several years earlier, events involving Bruce Ivins.

NO! That is just plain STUPID. If a witness says something, we have NO ABILITY to know the strength of his memory. To counter that EVIDENCE, you need CONTRARY EVIDENCE.

OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT IS TYPICAL ARE WORTHLESS.

It is STUPID to argue that a witness cannot be trusted because the average or typical or usual person would not remember such a thing. The witness CANNOT be assumed to be average or typical or usual. He states what he observed or thought. If what he said is disputed by ANOTHER WITNESS, then we have cause to try to figure out who is right and who is wrorg - by looking at OTHER evidence.

R. Rowley also wrote: "All things being equal, Ivins would most likely remember what he was doing in off hours in late 2001 better than any coworker, just as the coworker would remember what he/she was doing then better than Ivins would."

All thing are NOT equal. Therefore the reasoning is STUPID.

This is a legal case. Witness testimony is EVIDENCE. It's taken at face value unless there is contrary EVIDENCE. If it is totally unrealistic and unbelievable, it would not be introduced as evidence in the first place.

You do not trust the government, so you feel that is "reason." It's your OPINION.

I look at the facts and evidence available to me. The facts and evidence available to me say Ivins had no explanation for most of his evening and weekend hours in Suite B3. And I have no reason to believe that the contents of the notebook provide any such explanation. If you have NEW facts and evidence you can make available to me, that's great. But just arguing OPINIONS is STUPID.

Writing long, rambling comments doesn't help resolve this debate. Short and succinct comments are always best. All your comments could probably be written as one short sentence, like: "I don't believe anything in any FBI report, and nothing you say will make me believe any of it." That would nicely sum things up.

R. Rowley also wrote: "All things being equal, Ivins would most likely remember what he was doing in off hours in late 2001 better than any coworker, just as the coworker would remember what he/she was doing then better than Ivins would."

All thing are NOT equal. Therefore the reasoning is STUPID. ===================================Oh, so YOUR (ex-)coworkers from years ago will TYPICALLY remember the hours you worked, what you were precisely doing at work BETTER than you will?!?!?!!?!?!? Boy, then your memory is even worse than I thought. But, if that is the case, you are atypical. (The "stupid" bit was beneath you and I'm not going to respond in kind).

I'm here to argue FACTS AND EVIDENCE. ====================================The most important facts in the (Ivins phase of) Amerithrax Case are:

1) there is absolutely no evidence that Ivins made either trip to Princeton.

2) there is absolutely no evidence he printed the Amerithrax texts.

3) there is absolutely no evidence he xeroxed those texts.

4) there is absolutely no evidence he did ANY DRYING WHATSOEVER of anthrax in the year 2001. The entire calendar year.

Instead, for item #4 we get the SURROGATE claim that Ivins' off hours in Sept-Oct were 'unexplained'. The only way I can think of to 'explain' those hours is by examining the notebook in question. Here we come to the great divide:

1) every single Amerithrax Truther(that I know of) would like for that notebook to be produced, since it bears the names of no FBI agents or others who could possibly be hurt inadvertently, and MIGHT solve once and for all whether Ivins did the drying/purifying.

2) the Task Force/DoJ has never released it, or a duplicate. Or explained why it hasn't done so.

Mister Lake shows, at best, an intermittent and casual interest in this key bit of evidence.

The meaning of that is: Lake has, at best, an intermittent interest in whether Ivins was really innocent or not, for that's the only major (sub-)task* of Amerithrax for which there is even the glimmer of a case against him. Lake fears that notebook's release. Perhaps with good reason.

*(sub)task. It bears repeating that growing wet anthrax was a quotidian part of Ivins' job as an anthrax vaccine researcher and the mere growing of wet anthrax by Ivins tells us nothing about guilt/innocence. So this 'task' is being excluded.

Note: Mister Lake, your posts, even if we restrict them to those addressing me(ie those without DXer's prose embedded therein), are FAR longer, on average, than mine are, and it must be the cause of much amusement to your readers that you repeatedly tax me with verbosity. Ain't buyin'.

The other person wasn't saying what Ivins was doing. He was saying what he recalls happening at USAMRIID at that time.=======================================USAMRIID was/is a very big place. Even if you restrict it to the Bacteriology Division. Our only interest in 'what was going on' at USAMRIID is: the degree to which it might illuminate Ivins' evening hours. Unknown and unidentifiable persons giving years-later reminiscences is no substitute for Ivins' notebook.

This is a legal case. Witness testimony is EVIDENCE==================================Witnesses are people who appear in court, who are identified, who are subject to cross-examination. This person flunks on all three grounds.This person is an "informant" up until he/she is selected by prosecution or defense to appear in court. But that involves, among other things, a loss of anonymity.

There IS no 'legal case' here. There are only the debris of an investigation. Any POSSIBLE legal case of the future involving Amerithrax, however unlikely, would have to feature other defendants. Mister Lake thinks that impossible, so for him it is simply: case closed (and that in February of 2010!).

R. Rowley wrote: "The most important facts in the (Ivins phase of) Amerithrax Case are:

1) there is absolutely no evidence that Ivins made either trip to Princeton.

2) there is absolutely no evidence he printed the Amerithrax texts.

3) there is absolutely no evidence he xeroxed those texts.

4) there is absolutely no evidence he did ANY DRYING WHATSOEVER of anthrax in the year 2001. The entire calendar year.

All Mr. Rowley is doing is demonstrating once again that he doesn't understand how circumstantial evidence works in court.

There IS evidence that Ivins did ALL of those things.

The evidence says Ivins committed the crime (check the Summary report for details), therefore (1) he MUST have driven to New Jersey (there's nothing that says he didn't). (2) he MUST have created the letters somehow (there are various ways to do it), (3) he MUST have Xeroxed the letters (although it can't be determined exactly WHERE he did it, and (4) he MUST have dried the anthrax powders (he had the means).

It is NOT NECESSARY necessary to show exactly how or where Ivins did any of those things.

R. Rowley also wrote: "1) every single Amerithrax Truther(that I know of) would like for that notebook to be produced"

If they submitted an FOIA request, what was the reason it was not provided? Was it because it contains privileged confidential RESEARCH information?

R. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake, your posts, even if we restrict them to those addressing me(ie those without DXer's prose embedded therein), are FAR longer, on average, than mine are.

Maybe that's because I write ONE response to FOUR of your posts.

R. Rowley also wrote: "There IS no 'legal case' here. There are only the debris of an investigation."

That is your nonsensical opinion. There is an excellent case against Dr. Ivins. You just do not understand how a circumstantial case works in court. You demonstrate that over and over and over.

Mr. Rowley also wrote: "Any POSSIBLE legal case of the future involving Amerithrax, however unlikely, would have to feature other defendants. Mister Lake thinks that impossible"

I don't think it's "impossible." It's just extremely unlikely to the point of absurdity.

All Mr. Rowley is doing is demonstrating once again that he doesn't understand how circumstantial evidence works in court.

There IS evidence that Ivins did ALL of those things.===============================No, there isn't. Evidence of the drives to Princeton would be: toll receipts on a road heading to/from NJ; CC television footage of Ivins on any road leading to New Jersey; a parking ticket issued in NJ ; a speeding ticket issued on a highway going to/from New Jersey; receipts for gasoline or any other purchase on the way to/from New Jersey; someone who wrote down/remembered Ivins tag numbers for some reason on the night(s) in question, etc. And, please note, ALL of the above would be "circumstantial evidence" save only the eyewitness jotting down the tag numbers.

Now, before Lake switches to his usual tactic of THEN claiming that I'm looking for/requiring a PARTICULAR TYPE (or types) of evidence, let me short-circuit that diversion: I'm not looking for any particular TYPE of evidence that Ivins made the trips, I'm looking for ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER he made the trips. There is none. All Lake and the Task Force do/did was: infer WITHOUT EVIDENCE that the trips were made.Wouldn't have stood up a in a court of law. Ask any competent attorney.

Likewise with the other (sub)tasks: Lake and the Task Force INFER WITHOUT EVIDENCE that Ivins printed the texts, xeroed the texts, and did the drying/purifying. That's simply not what courts define as evidence. In Wisconsin or anywhere else. That covers just about every major sub-task of Amerithrax, all are without evidence.

Evidence in the form of testimony from a witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning. Evidence that, if believed, proves existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. That means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact, and which is distinguished from Circumstantial Evidence, often called indirect.-----------------------------

It would have been shown via CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that Ivins drove to New Jersey. Click HERE for a definition of "Circumstantial Evidence."

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials."

1. Ivins created the powders and the letters.2. The letters were mailed from New Jersey.3. Ivins had no alibi for the times when the letters were mailed.4. Ivins had a history of driving long distances to commit crimes.

Therefore;

5. Ivins drove to New Jersey to mail the letters.

How many times do I have to explain this? If Mr. Rowley is incapable of understanding circumstantial evidence, then he should say so -- instead of wasting time by arguing that he accepts ONLY direct evidence.

It is you who have proven and proven directly above this post, that you don't understand the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence.

Close to ALL of the items I mentioned:

1) toll receipts on a road heading to/from NJ;

2)CC television footage of Ivins on any road leading to New Jersey;

3) a parking ticket issued in NJ ;

4) a speeding ticket issued on a highway going to/from New Jersey;

5) receipts for gasoline or any other purchase on the way to/from New Jersey;

All the above are circumstantial evidence FOR THE CRIMES ALLEGED.Because it's possible to go to NJ/Princeton late at night without mailing anything, without mailing anything containing anthrax.

All the above items would prove either singly or in tandem is: that a trip to New Jersey was LIKELY made in the correct timeframe. The above items, neither individually nor in tandem, do NOT prove that the crimes alleged were done by the suspect/defendant.

Those items would be DIRECT evidence that Ivins drove to New Jersey. ==============================================Circumstantial. His car might have been borrowed or stolen. You are deeply confused about what direct vs. circumstantial evidence is.Worse, you are so cock-sure of yourself on everything, that you have no capacity to self-correct. A shame.

You dream up a situation where the direct evidence wouldn't really be direct evidence. All that shows is that you can twist anything to create an argument.

"2)CC television footage of Ivins on any road leading to New Jersey;

Did Ivins steal his own car? How is that done?

4) a speeding ticket issued on a highway going to/from New Jersey;

Did the driver of the car steal Ivins' driver's license, too, and put on a disguise to make him look like Ivins to the officer giving the ticket?

5) receipts for gasoline or any other purchase on the way to/from New Jersey;

So, you're saying that this imaginary person not only stole Ivins' car, but also his credit cards, which he used to buy gas.

Creating imaginary situations where direct evidence isn't really direct evidence merely shows that you are deeply confused about what direct vs. circumstantial evidence is. Worse, you are so cock-sure of yourself on everything, that you have no capacity to self-correct. A shame.

You're changing the argument again. And you're playing word games.========================================No, I'm not. The determining factor in whether it's direct or circumstantial is: whether a significant INFERENCE (a word never in play in Lake's active vocabulary) is being made.

Example: Mr X sees right in front of his eyes a shooting/stabbing/purse snatching. Because it happened right in front of his eyes, his testimony is direct evidence. This has nothing to do with reliability: lots of eye witnesses are wrong, even laughably* so, but their testimony is STILL classified as 'direct evidence'. Because no significant inference is necessary, by the witness or by the persons listening to his testimony.They may believe it, they might disbelieve it, but no inference is necessary.

In the 5 cases above that I supplied, ALL require further significant inferences, some of a negative character: 'this is a receipt/speeding ticket issued on a road to NJ on the night in question' + 'I bet Ivins was driving!' + 'I bet he drove to Princeton and put something in that mailbox'.But inplicitly: 'I bet there's no innocent explanation for Ivins' vehicle having been on this road on this particular night!'. THOSE inferences are what make it indirect or circumstantial evidence.

*There are examples of this direct eye/ear testimony analyzed and then disregarded by the jurors in TWELVE ANGRY MEN. Or consider the Russia folk expression: 'He lies like an eye witness'.

You're just being argumentative. The legal definitions of "direct" and "circumstantial" evidence are clear. You can dream up ways to argue that "direct" evidence isn't always "direct" enough to suit you, or that circumstantial evidence isn't really evidence at all, but who cares about such silly arguments? All that is important is what is valid in court.

If the ARGUMENT is that Ivins did NOT drive to New Jersey, CC television footage of him driving to New Jersey would be DIRECT evidence that he DID drive to New Jersey.

If the ARGUMENT is that Ivins was NOT the anthrax killer, CC television footage of him driving to New Jersey at the time of the mailing would only be one item of CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence helping to show that he was the anthrax killer. By itself, it proves nothing.

Did Ivins steal his own car? How is that done?==================================Okay, ya got me: on that one my wording was faulty. A CC camera on a roadway would likely pick up tag numbers, but would likely not capture clear images of the occupant(s), so I should have written "CC television footage of Ivins' car.....".

The bottom of page 92 in "part 32 of 59" says, XXXX stated the animal caretakers were the individuals that ran the autoclave, however, [she] did not recall any of the caretakers names. [She] was not aware of the destruction protocols.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted to post another meaningless message. Here it is in its entirety:----------------------------Krisen Friend's assistant testified (p. 19):

"I learned how to handle animals, from small rodents like mice and hamsters to rabbits and non-human primates."

Dr. Ivins and Dr. Fellows directed her work. (p. 24).

But she was not available to assist Dr. Ivins and Dr. Fellows with the animals that first week in October 2001 because she was assigned to work in DSD, where she reported to Dr. Ezzell. (p. 26).

On a separate point, Ed's point about how veterinarians were authorized to come into the B3 if they wanted illustrates well that Dr. Ivins in fact was not free to do as he pleased.---------------------------

Note that DXer doesn't say where his page numbers apply. Presumably, they're in some deposition.

I could try to find where the quotes came from, but what would be the purpose? It all seems irrelevant, and DXer certainly makes no attempt to explain any relevance.

The final paragraph is also meaningless while at the same time appearing to be total nonsense. Dr. Ivins did his work in Room B313. The animals were kept in Rooms B305 and B310. Therefore, if veterinarians were to come into Suite B3 while Ivins was at work on making the anthrax powders, they would NOT prevent Dr. Ivins from doing "as he pleased."

Additionally:

(1) The veterinarians would almost certainly take precautions to avoid disturbing any scientist who was working late hours.

(2) The veterinarians wouldn't be able to tell what Ivins was doing anyway, since they were veterinarians and not microbiologists.

(3) And if Ivins knew the times when veterinarians attended to the animals, he could avoid doing anything illegal during those times.

So, it's just another pointless, meaningless post. DXer just doesn't seem to understand that when a person quotes something, it's a good idea to state what document was being quoted and perhaps provide a link so people can check it out.

DXer's second attempted post is a lot more interesting, but equally meaningless, except perhaps to show yet again that DXer doesn't seem to understand anything. Here is his second post in its entirety:

-----------------At Ms. Friend's civil deposition that I caused to be uploaded at various locations this year, Ms. Friend testified that things were very busy after 9/11, even before the anthrax mailings:

A. Well, at that time, of course, [ 9 ]11 had happened. The whole institute as a whole, we were doing lots of sampling from all over the country. Diagnostic Systems Division, which is another division within USAMRIID, requested any division within the institute that can supply bodies to screen plates, meaning culture plates of anything that they were doing (p. 25)...

A. So this was prior to that. They were already receiving samples from air handling systems in DC from various buildings. There were five buildings that were being monitored. They were getting swipe samples from those twice a day. In the beginning, they were getting almost 3,000 samples a day, and they needed more bodies to help do that. So it quickly went to an eight-hours-a-day session, 24-hour operation, seven days a week. And the people that were screening those assays, they were dissolve assays; however, they did not know what the organism looked like on a plate. So they needed people like myself to tell them yes or no anthrax is there, whatever, plague is there, so I got detailed to that division to assist them with that.

So I think it was like October 1st, October 2nd, I got volunteered to go up there. So I stopped working on -- Dr. Ivins was still my boss, but I didn't report to him on a daily basis; I reported to someone in that division.

Q. The DSD division.

A. That's correct. (p. 26)

***Q. And from the October of 2001 to March, 2002 time period, then, you were involved in doing the things that you just described in connection with the building swipings?

A Correct.-----------------------------

So, what is DXer trying to say? Apparently, shortly after 9/11 USAMRIID began to help test 5 buildings in Washington for anthrax, the plague and other dangerous organisms, probably as a result of the concern that al Qaeda could followup on the 9/11 attacks with some kind of biological attack.

But, so what? Is DXer insinuating something? What is he insinuating? Why won't he explain? Is it because he can't explain? Or is it because he knows that whatever he is insinuating would be laughed at by everyone if he tried to explain?

It's just more meaningless nonsense from DXer. It seems he has abandoned his unsupportable theory that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks and is now siding with the true conspiracy theorists who believe the anthrax attacks were all some kind of sinister U.S. government plot to get us into a war with Iraq.

Maybe that's why he won't explain. It shows he's changed his mind, and that would mean he was in error for more than a decade.

This morning, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to his blog. Here is his post in it's entirety:

-----------------------Ed, the US Attorney stood up in the front of the room in announcing the FBI's Theory along with the lead AUSA Ken Kohl and the FBI Field Office head Persichini.

He said

"TAYLOR: Second, as a renowned expert in the production and purification of anthrax spores, Dr. Ivins was one of a handful of scientists with the capability to create spores of the concentration and purity used in the attacks. The affidavits allege that, not only did Dr. Ivins create and maintain the spore batch used in the mailings, but he also had access to and experience using a lyophilizer. A lyophilizer is a sophisticated machine that is used to dry pathogens, and can be used to dry anthrax. We know others in Dr. Ivins’ lab consulted him when they needed to use this machine."

The FBI immediately backpedaled from the claim on which US Attorney says he rested his conclusion. His statements are on film and there is a transcript available. He explained his conclusions on national TV.

The FBI was right to backpedal on the claim given that the claim was baseless."----------------------------------

DXer for the umpteenth time shows he does not understand anything, and he cannot explain anything.

DXer wrote: "The FBI immediately backpedaled from the claim on which US Attorney says he rested his conclusion. "

WHAT CLAIM???!!! Jeff Taylor MAKES NO CLAIM in that statement.

What Taylor does, unfortunately, is put two different subjects together in one comment: (1) Ivins capability to create spores like those in the letters, and (2) Ivins knowledge of the lyophilizer. He DOES NOT say that Ivins used a lyophilizer to make the attack spores, although DXer and countless other Truthers INTERPRET things that way, because it fits with their beliefs.

From your Sunday (today's) comment:"During the past few days, I have been arguing on my interactive blog with two Truthers who seem to believe that when a scientist at USAMRIID, like Dr. Ivins, comes in in the evening or on a weekend to check on test animals, he will also immediately perform necropsies on any animals that are found dead[...]"----------Actually, if you read my posts carefully (ahem!) you will find that I never------in this thread or anywhere else!-----------mentioned the word (or concept) of necropsies in regard to Ivins, Amerithrax, or the cost of tea in China. Are you practicing your fiction writing here too? As to whether DXer touched on necropsies or not, you have me at a disadvantage: I doubt I've read more than 1/3 of the posts here on the present thread, since I dislike being drawn unnecessarily into other people's arguments. Therefore, I don't know DXer's stated take on the (sub)topic.

However, now that we have got back on the general topic of who-did-what on the off-hours at USAMRIID, an observation:

1) in going over this topic several times over a number of years now, Mister Lake and I (and possibly DXer) have written as though the only interest of the investigator is dead vs live animals.

2) it strikes me that almost certainly that is reductionist in the extreme if the challenge's purpose is to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine.

3) such a challenge will produce a third, perhaps majority, category: mice or rabbits (or whatever) that become sick to one degree or another, but which survive.

4) this category, call it "partial immunity" if you have to give it a name, might always exist, but it surely will exist if/when the vaccine has lost some of its potency.

5) how the investigator determines this (non-fatal) sickness isn't clear to me, but I would speculate a blood sample might be taken.

R. Rowley wrote: "Actually, if you read my posts carefully (ahem!) you will find that I never------in this thread or anywhere else!-----------mentioned the word (or concept) of necropsies in regard to Ivins,...."

Yes, I know. I'm the only one who uses the terms necropsy (the equivalent of an autopsy, but on an animal) and necropsies. I assume USAMRIID scientists don't just throw out dead animals, they first do a necropsy to determine the cause of death. Mr. Rowley and "DXer" have Bruce Ivins autoclaving cages and disposing of dead animals without any thought of the need for a necropsy. The animal test conclusions will be WRONG if you don't know how each animal died.

I was just adding necropsies to the things that Mr. Rowley and DXer were claiming that Dr. Ivins had to do at night, because necropsies would HAVE to be done if the other tasks were done.

Regarding testing vaccines on animals: The test is to determine how effective the vaccine is. Therefore, they usually have two groups of animals. One group is given the vaccine, the other does NOT get the vaccine.

Both groups are then exposed to anthrax spores.

All animals in the group that didn't get the vaccine are expected to die within a certain period. If they don't, that could mean that the anthrax dose was not adequate. If they do, they have a "standard" to judge the vaccine by.

They probably check the animals three times a day (maybe 2) to get a fix on how effective the vaccine is. If the vaccinated animals start dying as quickly as the non-vaccinated animals, the vaccine is of no value at all. If some animals start dying much later than the non-vaccinated group, then the vaccine had SOME effect but not enough. If only one or two animals die after all the non-vaccinated animals are dead, the vaccine definitely works, but it's not perfect.

So, yes, they are VERY interested in how many animals survive after being vaccinated and exposed to anthrax. But knowing how QUICKLY the vaccinated and non-vaccinated animals die tells them how effective the vaccine is, when it is NOT totally effective. It may tell them they need to tweek some ingredient to get better effectiveness.

R. Rowley wrote: "Actually, if you read my posts carefully (ahem!) you will find that I never------in this thread or anywhere else!-----------mentioned the word (or concept) of necropsies in regard to Ivins,...."

Yes, I know. I'm the only one who uses the terms necropsy (the equivalent of an autopsy, but on an animal) and necropsies. I assume USAMRIID scientists don't just throw out dead animals, they first do a necropsy to determine the cause of death. Mr. Rowley and "DXer" have Bruce Ivins autoclaving cages and disposing of dead animals without any thought of the need for a necropsy. The animal test conclusions will be WRONG if you don't know how each animal died.==========================================Said another way:

1) Mister Lake INVENTED the contents of that passage I copy and pasted earlier

(partial: "two Truthers who seem to believe that when a scientist at USAMRIID, like Dr. Ivins, comes in in the evening or on a weekend to check on test animals, he will also immediately perform necropsies on any animals that are found dead[...]"

2) you make references to necropsies you have no evidence for: neither documents thereof, nor even testimony of unnamed persons who did the animal work in question in the off hours.

Working by 'assumption'-------the word in verbal form is in Mister Lake's post----is frequently a mistake.

Just my take. My view of neither Amerithax in general------who done it------nor Ivins' guilt/innocence in particular in any way depends on necropsies, whether done during the daytime or in the off-hours, nor does it depend on who, if anyone, was doing them.

In the post above, Mr. Rowley goes on and on about how he cannot cope with the way I do things. In other posts he goes on and on about how he cannot cope with the way the government does things.

I'm sorry that Mr. Rowley is unable to cope. But, there's nothing I can do about it. As I see it, he just needs to try to understand what is being said, instead of constantly looking for new things to argue about.

In the post above, Mr. Rowley goes on and on about how he cannot cope with the way I do things============================It's not a matter of my "coping" (ANOTHER Lakeian invention!), it's a matter of whether you and the Task Force truly followed ANYTHING analogous to the 'scientific method' or due process. Look again at that flow chart above this thread. It says "construct a hypothesis" and right under that "conduct an experiment".

If we say that hypothesis is "Bruce Ivins alone committed the crimes of Amerithrax", then the 'experiments', roughly speaking, include:

1) administer polygraph tests. They did that twice, years apart, and Ivins passed them both.(Leading the Task Force to invalidate them years later, ie ignore their own experimental results)

2) do professional handwriting comparisons. They did that and Ivins' printing was found a probable non-match, this TWICE.

(So, the Task Force ignored those results and HID those results from the American people. Ignoring the experimental results)

3) test Ivins' vehicle and domicile for dry anthrax spores. They did that and found no spores.

(They ignored THOSE experimental results).

It goes on and on and on, the Task Force ignoring any and all signs of innocence, presumably solely because without Ivins they had no real suspect. Just like what happened with Hatfill. For four and a half years(!). Just like what happened (on a very much abbreviated timeframe) to Paul Kevin Curtis in the 2013 ricin mailings. It was Curtis HIMSELF, through his attorney, who set the investigators on the likely perpetrator, and his GUESS as to who sent the letters, so as to frame him, was accurate. It's not supposed to work that way, and expecting a wrongly-accused person to lead you to the true perpetrator happens once in a blue moon. More likely is a totally confused and compromised investigation. What if Curtis hadn't realized the depth of animosity on the part of the true ricin-guy?--------------------------------Note: if you invent opinions for me, Mister Lake, I'm going to call you on it. And that's exactly what you did vis-a-vis 'necropsies': INVENTED an opinion for me.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted FOUR more times to post to this blog during the past 12 hours.

The FIRST post in its entirety said:

---------------AUSA Lieber spoke at length in 2011 in a filmed interview about the lyophilizer:

"Over and over again you confront him with these facts that he has to sort of step away from. …"

Ha! It was the prosecution that needed to step away from the facts relating to the lyophilizer.------------------------------

Once again, DXer mentions something on the Internet without providing a link, forcing me to find the link for myself. The PBS interview with Rachel Lieber can be viewed by clicking HERE.

The interview took place on Oct. 10, 2011, THREE YEARS after DXer says the FBI "back-peddled" away from "CLAIMING" that Ivins used a lyophilizer to dry the attack spores.

What is DXer arguing now? Who knows? He does not explain. He just switches from "back-peddling" to "step away from." Here's part of the Lieber interview:

-------------------------LIEBER: If you think about it, Dr. Ivins worked with RMR-1029 and Bacillus anthracis in general every day of his life, five days a week for 20-something years. So the fact that no spores from the mailings were found in his house is utterly irrelevant. No spores from any of his work over the course of 20-something years were ever found in his house. It means that he was largely very careful with what he did, and for good reason. …

PBS: But they will argue they were working with wet [anthrax]; this is dry. This would have had to be milled. It would have to be in the equipment. If the spores weren’t there, then DNA evidence would have been there. …

LIEBER: I think DNA evidence, it’s a completely different issue. The question is, why were no dried spores clinging to his cardigan sweater when he went home and had lunch? I think the answer to that was he was careful, and he was really good at what he did. So if you take a letter loaded with anthrax spores out of a laboratory, there are certain processes in place to do that. ............

I would also say, again to the point of this is somebody who has no experience in drying material, it is completely belied by the facts. The fact is that Dr. Ivins did have extensive experience in drying Bacillus material, whether or not it’s anthrax or some other Bacillus. ---------------------

AUSA Lieber then goes into a lengthy description of Ivins' experience drying Bacillus material with a lyophilizer. AT NO TIME DOES SHE SAY THAT IVINS USED A LYOPHILIZER TO DRY THE ATTACK SPORES.

DXers SECOND attempted post, in its entirety, said:

------------------Ed hasn't read the rabbit documents which is why he is confused.

Ed doesn't even know who exsanguinated the rabbits.-----------------

I've read the documents. They're meaningless. And DXer cannot explain how and why he thinks they are relevant.

It doesn't make any difference who exsanguinated the animals. The only way it would be relevant is if DXer could prove it was done by Ivins during those "unexplained" evening and weekend hours.

DXer's THIRD attempted post said in its entirety:

------------------- Ed doesn't even know who was responsible for administering the Euthasol upon a rabbit being found moribund on nights or weekends."-------------------

If DXer has evidence that Ivins did any of this during his "unexplained" time in Suite B3, then DXer needs to provide us with that evidence.

DXer's FOURTH post said in its entirety:

---------------------Ed regularly mischaracterizes people and then does not make the corrections.

But then he fails to knock down even the straw man. ------------------------

There is, of course, no claim of any kind whatsoever in what US Attorney Jeff Taylor said. But, unfortunately, Mr. Taylor addressed two different subjects in the same comment: (1) Ivins had the ability to make the attack spores, and (2) Ivins was an expert on the use of the lyophilizer. The Anthrax Truthers, as usual, incorrectly put 2 and 2 together and got 597. The Truthers interpreted this as a "claim" that Ivins made the attack anthrax using the lyophilizer. ============================================If Taylor made no claim whatsoever, then the 'corrective filing' of July 2011 by the DoJ on the lyophilizer is all but inexplicable. There would have been nothing to 'correct'.

R. Rowley wrote: "If Taylor made no claim whatsoever, then the 'corrective filing' of July 2011 by the DoJ on the lyophilizer is all but inexplicable. There would have been nothing to 'correct'."

So, now I have to go and do research to see exactly what was said. Why can't you explain yourself? You're almost as bad as DXer. I don't remember all the bulls**t that Truthers and McClatchy newspapers try to foist on the public.

Okay. We had a DOJ lawyer in Florida who screwed up and wrote:

28. USAMRIID did not have the specialized equipment in a containment laboratory that would be required to prepare the dried spore preparations that were used in the letters.

And here is the corrected statement:

Although USAMRIID had equipment that could be used to dry liquid anthrax in the same building where anthrax research was conducted, USAMRIID did not have a lyophilizer in the specific containment laboratory where RMR-1029 was housed to prepare the dried spore preparations that were used in the letters.

And there is a footnote to that last statement. The footnote says:

Defendant United States does not seek to imply that a lyophilizer provides the only means to dry liquid anthrax.

The Stevens trial to was determine whether or not the USA was negligent in allowing Bruce Ivins to work with dangerous pathogens, thus allowing Ivins to kill Bob Stevens.

The government's defense in the Stevens' lawsuit said that what Ivins did was unpredictable. And, the government can't be held responsible for something that can't be predicted.

The original misstatement was that Ivins didn't have the required equipment in his lab to dry the spores. The correction says that he didn't have a lyophilizer in his lab to dry spores, but there were other ways he could have dried the spores. Both versions claim Ivins did something that was unpredictable.

The error required correction because it implied that the lyophilizer was the ONLY way to dry anthrax. It said, in effect, that the lyophilizer was REQUIRED to dry spores. That is and ERROR and is NOT TRUE. The DOJ lawyer made a mistake, and the mistake was correct.

Unfortunately, the McClatchy newspaper chain and the Truthers jumped all over it and claimed it was a reversal of position for the government. It wasn't. It was just a mistake by a DOJ lawyer in a CIVIL case, who didn't understand the science and the evidence in the Ivins CRIMINAL case.

And, as you demonstrate, Truthers still cannot accept what it was all about. They NEED to distort things to make it look like THE ENTIRE DOJ changed its mind, instead of it just being a single lawyer who made a mistake.

And not merely McClatchy, Frontline and ProPublica, but all other major media outlets

For example, Scott Shane of the NYT:

"Lawyers for the department’s civil division wrote in the July 15 filing that the Army’s biodefense center at Fort Detrick, Md., “did not have the specialized equipment in a containment laboratory that would be required to prepare the dried spore preparations that were used in the letters.”

But on Tuesday, the department sent the court a list of corrections to its documents in the Florida lawsuit, filed by the family of Robert Stevens, a tabloid photo editor and one of five people killed in the anthrax attacks. What the filing should have said, the department wrote, was that while the Army lab did not have a lyophilizer, a freeze-drying machine, in the space where Dr. Ivins usually worked, there was a lyophilizer and other equipment in the building that he could have used to dry the anthrax into powder."

These formidable journalists -- who are tracking the plain language of the filings -- are correct. For example, there was a lyophilizer in Rm. 212 of Building 1412, which was the containment suite of the FBI's anthrax expert who made a dried powder out of Flask 1029.---------------------------------

I'm fully aware of the "yellow journalism" that McClatchy and ProPublica evidently conned Frontline into going along with. I have a web page about it on my site. It's titled "PBS Frontline vs The Anthrax Facts." Click HERE to read it.

It's just an example of how sleazy even PBS can get when they don't check their facts.

The Scott Shane article, however, just reports the news. DXer, as usual, distorts things to fit his beliefs, and he doesn't provide links (or even a DATE). So, I had to hunt for it. Click HERE to read it.

There's nothing in Scott Shane's story that supports the McClatchy nonsense.

The second attempted post by DXer, in its entirety, reads as follows:

-------------------For example, in "Justice Dept. takes on itself in probe of 2001 anthrax" Jerry Markon of the Washington Post quotes Paul Rothstein, a law professor at Georgetown University:

“I cannot think of another case in which the government has done such an egregious about-face.’’--------------------------

In another attempted post, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") wrote: -------------------Ed writes: " There is no idea so stupid that you can't find an "expert" with perfect credentials to support it."

That's not true Ed. You can't find any "expert" with perfect credentials (or otherwise) to support it.-------------------------

Of course, DXer doesn't explain himself. So, either he doesn't realize he found an "expert" in in the Washington Post article to support a "stupid" idea, or he's saying there are no "experts" at the DOJ or FBI supporting what DXer believes is a "stupid" idea.

---------------Ed, what I meant is that you you can't find an "expert" -- regardless of credentials -- to support your theory that a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters.

So it is not true that there is no idea so stupid that you can't find an "expert" with perfect credentials to support it.-----------------

DXer again shows his obsession with that subject. I was considering just deleting that comment, since no matter how I respond, DXer will claim I'm the one who is always bringing it up.

If I found and named an expert who agrees with my hypothesis, DXer would be arguing that I found someone stupid enough to believe it. So, bringing up that subject just DXer's childish way of trying to get me upset.

My point was that the debate is NOT about how many "experts" DXer can line up to side with him on the idea that the DOJ and FBI haven't proven Bruce Ivins was guilty, the debate is about whether or not the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say Ivins was guilty.

At one time, nearly everyone on earth believed that the earth was flat. That didn't make it flat. Everyone was WRONG. They didn't know THE FACTS or they DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE FACTS.

The facts and evidence say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. And it doesn't matter one bit how many "experts" have other theories and beliefs.

When they discuss their own theories and beliefs about who was behind the anthrax attacks, they do not agree with each other. They only agree that the government must be wrong, because, if the government is right, then every one of the "experts," regardless of his theory, is wrong.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted FOUR more posts today. The first was just him acting like an obnoxious 12-year-old. So, I won't show it or comment further.

The second attempted post (in its entirety) was as follows:-------------Ed, perhaps I can help you make a credible argument in support of an Ivins Theory.

To start, rather than try to suggest he grew the anthrax in the autoclave (ha!) used by others, point out that the FBI doesn't know what happened to the Ames that his assistants were always making. They said it wasn't put into Flask 1029. See Amerithrax Investigative Summary.------------

I never suggest in any way that Ivins was growing spores in an autoclave. So, DXer's statement is just total nonsense.

If DXer believes that the spores Ivins' assistants were making is in some way relevant to the case, then he needs to explain HOW it is relevant. Until then, it's just something else he babbles about that is irrelevant.

"DXer's" third attempted post was as follows (in its entirety):-------------Also, Ed, if I could help you further in coming up with a credible Ivins Theory, consider Ivins experiment with heat shocked vs. non-heat-shocked spores. That was done in 1412 in connection with aerosol experiments. It could be done in lieu of purification using Renocal, Ivins said. He said he was first learned that it was done by Iraq during the Persian Gulf war era.-------------------

Unless DXer can explain how any of that is relevant to the case against Ivins, it is just more meaningless babble from someone who understands nothing about the evidence against Ivins.

The fourth attempted post, in its entirety, was as follows:------------------On a different subject, do you credit Dr. Ivins' claim that he was given a powdered sample that he was told from Iraq? He labeled it as a diagnostic sample, A-1, saying it was the only time he had mislabeled something.

It wasn't from Iraq. It actually was from the JHU-APL project. See "Information Paper" explaining it was one of two powdered vials out of the 100. If you credit Ivins' report that he was told it was from Iraq, why would Dr. Ezzell tell Ivins it was from Iraq? Might that have been because they were preparing it using a method that they had intel suggesting Iraq had once made or contemplated processing anthrax? The biodefense might very well have been classified, warranting a little obfuscation.-----------------

DXer needs to EXPLAIN how any of that meaningless babble is relevant to the case against Bruce Ivins. Until then, it's just irrelevant information that only he cares about.

So, in FOUR attempted posts, DXer says absolutely nothing worthy of a response. He simply demonstrates once again why he is no longer allowed to post directly to this blog.

"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:

--------------------Lake,

You need to stop mischaracterizing what I've said. I never said the FBI was lying about the lyophilizer or the issue of spore powder. She was making lawyerly, semantical arguments -- trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Ivins said he didn't know how to make a spore powder -- that they worked with virulent anthrax in wet suspension form, not dry powder form. You are confusing his ability to make a powder in his vaccine research with a virulent spore powder. Do you even know the nature of the powder he made in the mid-1990s? Does Lieber? They are two entirely different things. For example, the latter is deadly and people would die if you didn't have the right equipment and set-up so as to avoid contamination. You need to quote what I've said and not mischaracterize it. But as I've said, even when you set up a straw man argument you regularly fail to knock it down.

On the issue of lyophilizer the key -- if you even remotely understood things -- is that even as of February 2011 AUSA Lieber was adhering to use of a lyophilizer!.By all means, Ed, if there was other equipment in the B3 he could use, then name it. He didn't have a spraydryer. He didn't have a fluidized bed dryer. So by all means, Lake, name the equipment he had available to use. ------------------------

What "DXer" is now calling "lawyerly, semantical arguments," I would call "lies." Potayto, potahto.

"AUSA Lieber was adhering to use of a lyophilizer!"

AUSA Lieber was NOT IN ANY WAY saying Ivins used the lyophilizer to dry the attack spores. She was simply answering the interviewer's question.

"Do you even know the nature of the powder he made in the mid-1990s? Does Lieber? They are two entirely different things."

They were DRY POWDERS. They may have involved different bacteria, but otherwise THEY WERE THE SAME THING.

"Ed, if there was other equipment in the B3 he could use, then name it."

I've stated it DOZENS of times. If DXer doesn't read my responses, how can he ever hope to understand anything? It shows WHY he doesn't understand anything.

Ivins almost certainly AIR DRIED the spores inside the biosafety cabinet that was just inside the door of Room B-313. I state that in my book. I state that on my web site HERE. Example:

"When the powders were dry inside the biosafety cabinet, Ivins would have scraped the dried powders off the plates and into the two letters."